Objee

Cavman, it's been at the rating board 4 months so, by the time the letter comes out it should be 1/2 a year +/-. From reopening to now is 3-1/2 years. Of course, this all started in 1992. Ralph

Last I knew my claim was at the rating board. A NOD and a 2-issue claim. Today my state VSO told me that I had been awarded 100% sched hypothyroidism, 50% sleep apnea (BiPap), was Ch. 35 with no further exams and the ED was back in last 2003 when I first filed to reopen. He said 1 to 2 months to get decision letter but he'd try to speed that up. Anybody got any feeling for just how reliable this info might be?? I'm too paranoid to accept this info I guess, since I'm at only 10% now. Ralph

"Commisssary/Exchange card: You must bring in the VA letter (VA 20-8992), which states that you are authorized Commissary and Exchange privileges and whether or not any further physicals are required. Also, a copy of your DD-214 must be brought with the VA letter. The DD Form 2765 (Tan) ID card will apply. " If there is a future exam scheduled the card will expire 60 days after the exam date shown on the letter. Ralph

Boondoc, Have you actually been evaluated for PTSD - GAF, etc.? If so, and you haven't yet submitted it as a claim, you'll have to do that first. If it's (PTSD) listed with medical evidence in your NOD, you can submit additional medical evidence to the NOD for TDIU. I'd deliver the Statement to the RO and get the dated receipt stamp if at all possible. Ralph =======================================

Chief, Did you ever order a copy of your entire C-file? If not, I suggest you do. When I got my low-ball decision letter, I ordered and got a copy of my c-file. I then got medical opinions and submitted my NOD. All the medical opinions contained atatements that the physician had been given and read my c-file so s/he could write an opinion based on my past and current medical history. I recently found that my c-file now contains notice that I have a copy of it. This should defeat any idea that the docs writing opinions don't know your SMR and post-discharge medical history, since copies of your SMRs will be in your c-file. Ralph

So we're agreed - we won't form that circular firing squad. Dylan Thomas, the alcoholic Irish poet, comes to mind - "Do not go gently into that dark night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light." Our rage is with the VA system and related institutions, not each other. A gentle peace. Ralph

Just figure out which shell has the pea and you have your answer, kkp!

Ricky's right. I'm in the same circumstances you are and that's exactly what the RO did to me. Claims first, then the DRO appeal. He's also right about getting the earlier efffective date! File. Ralph

Jangrin, You may have come up with an interesting approach to appeals. A reconsideration is not the same as a DRO review. I have no idea how the RO would treat a request for reconsideration along with a Form 9. This MIGHT be a way to go to BVA quicker and still get a local review. Dunno, but it'd be interesting to find out. Any sea lawyers here that might know?? Ralph

Rocky, Mail your conversion info to the new chairs of the House and Senate committees on veterans affairs. HAND WRITE along the margin of the letter that "This is an egregious error in VA adjudication." Be sure to say that the GPO needs to correct this. The hand written comment signals that this isn't "just another letter." Great job, veteran!! Ralph

Cavman, Don't know about a 100% tax deferral, but here's what is in a flyer from Monroe, MI: "Michigan Veterans' Trust Fund: Located in the same office at the courthouse. Open T - W - Th, 9-1. (734) 240-7359. This is a financial assistance program for unforeseen emergencies on mortgage, rent, food, utility bills. A veteran with a minimum of 180 days war service who is honorably discharged can apply. Property tax relief: A veteran with a disability rating can qualify for home property tax relief on State of Michigan 1040CR form." Ralph

Hell, Gunny, let's go back to Rocks and Shoals - 30 days on hardtack and water with some friendly FMF babysitters oughta do it! B)

Stretch, The writ that was issued covers you and all other Haas claimants. You don't need another one. What you might need to do is to "advise" that if the VBA doesn't follow the writ, you'll ask the court to declare the Secretary (and local VARO) in contempt. Ralph

Jim, If the doc is afraid to write an opinion letter, there is another way. He has to write up progress notes and make entries in your computer records about what he thinks. He can make nexus statements and current diagnosis comments and, if it's in your computer records, he can cite service medical info. He knows he has to make progress reports on you. If you can convince him to enter the info that goes into a medical opinion, you can then obtain a copy of the progress notes and they will serve as a medical opinion. Ralph

Sledge, If the Secretary ignores the Writ of Mandamus the petitioner (veteran claimant) then petitions the court to hold the Secretary in contempt. Actually, if the Secretary's disobedience pi**es the court off enough, it will find him in contempt without any claimant's petition. In the extreme, the Secretary could be stuffed in the brig until he obeys. Ralph

Brian, If you don't have a copy of your C-file, get one right away. You've got to have hard copy of that 10% award in hand or any paranoia may be justified. "If it ain't in writing it doesn't exist!" Ralph

<Snip> Wow! There IS some law left! This writ has the effect of an injunction against the Secretary taking any delay action against obeying Haas. A well written decision with a weak contrary judge's opinion. (Note that the court uses BLACK's legal dictionary to define words. We need to keep that in mind for our choice of word meanings when addressing the courts.) HOORAY!!!! Ralph

Otey, Try this for an explanation: http://www.va.gov/hac/factsheets/champva/FactSheet01-22.pdf Ralph

It's a "VA cute" situation. I NODded my July '05 DL for all 3 items - hypo, apnea and TDIU based on the reopening medical opinion cited in the DL as evidence but not addressed at all in the decision. (I reopened the claim from '92 in 2003.) The claim opinion doc said I was 100% permanently disabled due to thyoidectomy, due to ionizing radiation, resultant hypothyroidism and sleep apnea secondary to the hypo. VA granted 10% for hypo. Service medical records aren't important since thyroid cancer shows up years after exposure. My hypothyroid mental problems appeared but were not diagnosed as such on active duty. The Oakland VARO carved the apnea and TDIU out of the NOD, saying they were new claims. This would eliminate 3 years of retro, so their motivation is clear. OK, so the NOD goes to Appeals and the claims to Rating, right? Not in this case and that's what has me confused. Ralph

I submitted a NOD and 2 new claims in May '06. My VSO says they are all at Appeals. Claims: Sleep Apnea and TDIU NOD: Hypothyroidism Will my claims go from Appeals to Rating or will Appeals handle the whole situation? (The TDIU needs the NOD and possibly the apnea claim to hit the 60% or 40/70% for TDIU rating at VARO.) The only rating I have now is 10% for hypothyroidism. Hypo symptomatology rates 100% - I expect 60%. Use a BiPap so apnea should be 50%. The VARO is Oakland. Ralph

This from National Review Online: "The V.A. buys drugs from pharmaceutical companies at the Federal Ceiling Price — a minimum 24 percent discount below the Average Manufacturer’s Price, or the “best price” offered to private-sector purchasers, whichever is lower. Not surprisingly, paying drug suppliers nearly one-quarter below wholesale (or less) generates myriad economic distortions for which patients pay the price. The vaunted VANF covers some 1,300 drugs, just 30 percent of the 4,300 drugs available on Medicare’s market-priced formulary. “The V.A. system does not provide a formulary that is comparable in scope to those currently provided by Medicare Part D plans,” Kathleen Hughes, Wendy Watson, and Thomas Goss concluded in their December study for Covance Market Access Services. “The V.A. formulary is more limited both with respect to more popular drugs in general, and with respect to the drugs currently used to treat conditions that are common in the Medicare population such as hypertension, depression, diabetes, and high cholesterol.” Covance’s paper, prepared for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, analyzed the 226 drugs most commonly prescribed for Americans over age 65. Of these, Medicare covers 213. VANF includes 165, or just 73 percent, of these agents. Among 83 high-blood-pressure drugs Covance studied, Medicare covers 81 (98 percent) while VANF includes 66 (80 percent). Medicare covers all 26 anti-depression compounds Covance examined; VANF includes 17 (65 percent). Medicare also pays for all 13 anti-cholesterol drugs Covance explored; VANF covers just 7 (54 percent). Crestor and Lipitor are among the popular drugs unavailable through the V.A. Of the 34 anti-diabetic treatments Covance considered, Medicare covers 30, while VANF includes just 15 (44 percent). Covance found 26 drugs Medicare covers that VANF excludes. These drugs accounted for 264 million prescriptions in 2004. Beyond the reach of V.A. patients, these drugs include Nexium for acid reflux and Alimta, Avastin, and Herceptin for cancer. It is vital that patients have access to as diverse a pharmacopoeia as possible since, for instance, anti-depressant A might produce frightful hallucinations while anti-depressant B yields sheer bliss. The price-fixed VANF restricts rather than expands patient choice. VANF also resembles the medicine chest in a long-abandoned house. Its contents may be cheap, but they’re hardly modern. Columbia University’s Frank Lichtenberg discovered in 2005 that V.A.’s formulary includes only 38 percent of the drugs the FDA approved in the 1990s and just 19 percent of those it authorized since 2000. “New drugs as a matter of V.A. policy are not considered for the V.A. formulary for three years, regardless of improved effectiveness or reduced side effects,” Manhattan Institute senior fellow Benjamin Zycher wrote in the November 29 RealClearPolitics.com. Three years awaiting a new drug may be merely excruciating for Americans with arthritic knees. But for those fighting, say, pancreatic cancer or other aggressive, life-threatening diseases, such foot dragging could prove fatal." The finest medical care available???????

Ron, absent any descriptive limits on evidence and argument, follow Berta's rule to push the law to its limits. Evidence is medical data, decision letters, etc. Argument is stating how you want them to look at and treat the evidence. Consider the general remand terms as an open hunting license. Just be sure that you present your additional evidence and argument clearly, as simply as possible, in a logical order and that it all pertains directly to the question at hand. Ralph

Understand that the court held that any claim not specifically mentioned in a decision letter is "deemed denied". It doesn't matter whether the VCAA letter mentions the claim or not. (The fact that this decision is contrary to the CFR rules is irrelevant. It's now a part of the case law about appeals.) Is it right? NO. But, neither was the Kelo v. New London correct about Eminent Domain. It's the new "living Constitution" court crap we're supposed to adopt with enthusiasm. Bulls**t. It's anti-Constitutional, but if we tolerate it, it'll stick. Ralph