Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

VA Disability Claims Articles

Ask Your VA Claims Question | Current Forum Posts Search | Rules | View All Forums
VA Disability Articles | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users

ArNG11

Master Chief Petty Officer
  • Posts

    1,673
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Everything posted by ArNG11

  1. I just got a decision in the mail about rhinitis.  I have service connection but only to the effective date of the law change.  I filled for Gulf war conditions in 2013-2014.  Denied and appealed all the way to the BVA and no dice. Until now but with a crap effective date.   I feel this is win but I can't say that I am overjoyed.  Denied higher ratings for Hypothyroid and GERD, service connection of sinusitis under same regulations and denied the higher ratings on law changes in 2017.  But approved for Rhinitis with an effective date of August 5, 2021.  Geesh why do I have a feeling this is going to be the norm whenever the laws change in the Veterans favor, effective dates go out the window it seems.   Im getting tired but Permanent and Total is just barely over the horizon and seems attainable 

    1. Carl the Engineer

      Carl the Engineer

      It's an easy first move for them.  Most Veterans will take it and leave, i.e., not fight for more.  And they know that.

      But you got something,

      Keep digging,

      Carl

      I had a HLR about six months ago.  From the records review, it looks like a copy and paste of the first denial, but during my interview for the HLR, I did mention the new law and presumptives, and whether any of that would apply.  It's been crickets for that last six months, so maybe they are trying to apply that to my claim.  And, it they do I will probably get the new date to.  LOL...

       

    2. ArNG11

      ArNG11

      Carl your right on the money.  I feel the BVA is going to do the same thing again on the latter the 2nd remand on the hips.  It looks like I have a good C&P opinion on connections of the hips after 2 remands from the BVA.  I can't help to think the same.  We gave you service connection on Rhinitis now so drop the effective date and be happy. Never mind the 8 years of fighting. Hmm. just doesn't feel right to give in and conceded to the offer on the table.

      It will be a third go at the regional office to deny the hips.

  2. Wow. Mr. Cue I wish I could give you some advice, but you are doing everything that you need to do. Your making the case and the points that apply to your claim. Keep on trucking the way you are. Eventually someone, judges, will follow the law. Wish you the best brother.
  3. Still no dice on an attorney, and Im thinking of possibly throwing the towel in on the issues that need to go to the CAVC.  Heh I got another remand on the hips, so that is good, can still try to fight the regulation changes on GERD and Hypothyroidism,  and I got a service connection on Rhinitis , still though, my noggin is not what it used to be, maybe my new Mavic Mini Pro 3 will spark something in me again.  

  4. NO GO on Chisholm, Chisholm, & Kilpatrick, so on to the next attorney.  They suggested the DAV at the CAVC, nope.  I would rather go at it alone than with a VSO at the CAVC.  No disrespect to service organizations, I would rather fight sharks with bigger sharks that have more teeth and biting force.

    1. Whodat

      Whodat

      That's a great attitude. I am a lifetime member of DAV, VFW, and have used a VSO in my past claims with very little or no success. I went from 10 to 90 pretty much on my own. Now getty the hundred is tough. 

      2017, I decided to use VFW to help me get serviced connected for my cervical and lumbar condition which are in my service medical records. The diagnosis and event or injury is also notated. Just couldn't get a Nexus. Was denied. VSO did do a notice of disagreement, denied again. I felt that the VSO did not put forth the effort, I reached out to VLG, they reviewed my case, told me that I had a strong case. I dropped VSO and hired VLG. VLG do not get paid unless I win my appeal. Just had my BVA hearing 3 months ago, now just waiting for the decision. 

    2. ArNG11

      ArNG11

      Veterans Law Group?  Out of California? I will look into them, I am not sure if they can represent at the CAVC but I will call and find out.  

    3. Whodat

      Whodat

      I live in Missouri. I use Veterans Law Group out of Troy Michigan. 

  5. Richard, considering the sensitivity of the award, respectfully, Congrats it is still a win.
  6. Well I got some disappointing news from one of the law firms I sought to represent me at the CAVC.  From a financial standpoint I understand why, but from a legal point of view, it is a little disheartening.  I still have one other firm I sought help from so I will wait and see what is decided there.  I am bummed but I am having a hot cup of espresso and my greek yogurt for breakfast and it is helping.  I'm not done yet, I still have 90 days or so and I have the BVA win on rhinitis and the remand again for service connection of the hips.  

    1. Show previous comments  3 more
    2. Whodat

      Whodat

      Is Peter Cameron a Law Firm? 

    3. spirit_grt

      spirit_grt

      Yes.  Veterans Disability Claims Attorney, Veterans Disability Benefits Lawyer (veteranappeal.com)

      He helped a friend of mine when no one would take her appeal.  He won.  Only thing I can say for him for sure is he won her case and he or someone from his office always responds to my questions quickly.  He is a Navy vet.

    4. ArNG11

      ArNG11

      Sweet thanks for the info.  I am running out of time to appeal on the issues that need to go to the CAVC, I also have a few on remand again to the BVA so I will reach out to him.  There is only so many attorneys that can represent at the CAVC and it is cut throat at that point.  Crap I wish I was on here more often your message was from 14 days ago. 

       

  7. I always say I need a cup of Joe to relax, mind you I know its a stimulant so it shouldn't, I will say after a cup though, I can refocus and things don't seem as bad.   Funny how that works.  

  8. Heh Rivet, How did this pan out for you? Did you get a decision yet?
  9. BVA disappointed me on most but did score 1 on Rhinitis service connection, now to see what effective date the VA uses.Got a remand a second time on the service connection of the hips. On the rest well CAVC is where I need to go.  Looking for a law firm since I got the decision I have a 105 days left to appeal to the CAVC.

  10. Im back, Thanks to Tbird.   I have been missing being on here.  I could only read and not answer posts or anything and it was driving me bonkers.  Tbird has resolved the issue and enhanced my calm and inner peace if I can even have those at this point in the game.

    So CAVC is my next stop on a few of my claims along with another remand to BVA for Bilateral hip service connection, BVA is really fighting me on this.  The claim will go back to 2014 maybe 2013 if I can have them apply the law and regulation correctly. Along with applying the 2017 revision changes in the law for Hypothyroidism under code 7903 Hypothyroid without myxedema 30% rating.  I also won on the Rhinitis with the SW Asia/Gulf War regulations changes but lost on Sinusitis which I will also try to appeal.

    Chisholm, Chisholm, & Kilpatrick is who I am reaching out to currently for representation, as going to CAVC without an attorney is, well, put simply not in my or anyones best interest.  As of today I only have 108 days to appeal to the CAVC. I need a big boy to play with those sharks. No benefit of doubt or Veteran protections up that a way, it is all about the law and so many briefs, which I must admit I cannot hold my own against in especially with another panel of judges.

     

  11. This code, or rather diagnostic code issue has been going on for a while. Longer than what I have had experience with but the jest of fighting it is the same. The VA is trying to redefine the disabilities impact by changing some diagnostic codes and rating schedules and by redefining the functional scale on which the disability affects the veteran. On the surface I think it would do some good but I am not convinced that it will be great for the large masses. All in all bottom line is how it affects the Veterans ability to earn and income, to adapt to a normal environment while being hindered by those disabilities and comparing that to a "normal" of a person that does not have disabilities. Sorry my thoughts are a little scatter brained currently. I have to re read the proposed changes a few dozen more times without letting any emotional garbage clouding my understanding of the proposed edits if you will.
  12. The initial concern is the time period of reassessing functional impairment over 30 day increments. My other concern is elimination of consideration of what the claimants disability would be if he were not medicated or under treatment. IMO this is relative information to assess the severity of the mental disability. You would have to consider both not just one or the other in order to make or rather assess the impact of the disease/condition. This is what I meant to post instead of the current ECFR's. VI. Notes to the Proposed General Rating Formula VA proposes to add three notes at the end of the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders to promote greater consistency and accuracy in applying the criteria. The first note would provide that only one evaluation will be assigned for co-existing service-connected mental disorders. According to 38 U.S.C. 1155, the VA rating schedule shall compensate veterans for “impairments of earning capacity,” not specific diagnoses. And according to 38 CFR 4.14, evaluations of the same disability or manifestation under different diagnoses is to be avoided. Most mental disorders are “composed of multiple emotional, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions, many of which are shared across disorders.” Lee Ann Clark et al., “Three Approaches to Understanding and Classifying Mental Disorder: ICD-11, DSM-5, and the National Institute of Mental Health's Research Domain Criteria (RDoC),” 18 Psychol. Sci. in the Pub. Int. 72, 112 (2017). In addition, co-existing mental disorders, that is, comorbidity, “is the rule rather than the exception.” Id. Therefore, consistent with 38 U.S.C. 1155 and the rule against pyramiding, 38 CFR 4.14, Note (1) will instruct adjudicators not to assign individual disability ratings to more than one mental disorder given the likelihood of comorbid mental disorders and the prevalence of overlapping symptoms among such disorders. The second note would explain that evaluations under the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders would consider any ameliorating effects of medications prescribed for a mental disorder. In other words, if a veteran were receiving medication for a mental disability, VA would rate only the disabling symptomatology that exists after the ameliorative effects of medication are taken into account. We are adding this note because in Jones v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 56, 63 (2012), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held that, “[a]bsent a clear statement [in the rating criteria] setting out whether or how the Board [of Veterans' Appeals (Board)] should address the effects of medication,” the Board should not take those effects into account when evaluating a claimant's disability. However, consideration of ameliorating effects of medications is consistent with 38 CFR 4.2, which states that VA adjudicators should consider a disability “from the point of view of the veteran working or seeking work” and provide a current rating that “accurately reflect[s] the elements of disability present.” VA adjudicators should not be basing ratings on speculation of how severe a veteran's disability might be if he or she were not taking medication; the rating should be based on the actual elements of disability present. See generally McCarroll v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 267, 276-78 (2016) (Kasold, J., concurring in part). The third note would explain that, in evaluating frequency, VA adjudicators should consider the percentage of time, in a given month, that impairment occurs. As discussed above, this is consistent with the WHO's ICF Checklist rate. VA seeks comment on the three proposed notes.
  13. Oh here is some of it: § 4.126 Evaluation of disability from mental disorders. (a) When evaluating a mental disorder, the rating agency shall consider the frequency, severity, and duration of psychiatric symptoms, the length of remissions, and the veteran's capacity for adjustment during periods of remission. The rating agency shall assign an evaluation based on all the evidence of record that bears on occupational and social impairment rather than solely on the examiner's assessment of the level of disability at the moment of the examination. (b) When evaluating the level of disability from a mental disorder, the rating agency will consider the extent of social impairment, but shall not assign an evaluation solely on the basis of social impairment. (c) Neurocognitive disorders shall be evaluated under the general rating formula for mental disorders; neurologic deficits or other impairments stemming from the same etiology (e.g., a head injury) shall be evaluated separately and combined with the evaluation for neurocognitive disorders (see § 4.25). (d) When a single disability has been diagnosed both as a physical condition and as a mental disorder, the rating agency shall evaluate it using a diagnostic code which represents the dominant (more disabling) aspect of the condition (see § 4.14). (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155) [61 FR 52700, Oct. 8, 1996, as amended at 79 FR 45099, Aug. 4, 2014]
  14. From what I read and understand this regulation change seems beneficial in some respects but adds more complexity to the rating criteria in the higher levels. This still should fall under some protections from the regulations. Say Hypothyroidsm or high blood pressure, you have the disease, it is service connected and you take medication for it. You still suffer from the disease and while it may be controlled by medication, this doesn't mean you don't have the condition any more, it just means that it is controlled by medication that you have to take for the rest of your life. Am I remembering wrong or does this not fall under pre-stabilization regulations under the CFR. § 4.1 Essentials of evaluative rating. This rating schedule is primarily a guide in the evaluation of disability resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of or incident to military service. The percentage ratings represent as far as can practicably be determined the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and their residual conditions in civil occupations. Generally, the degrees of disability specified are considered adequate to compensate for considerable loss of working time from exacerbations or illnesses proportionate to the severity of the several grades of disability. For the application of this schedule, accurate and fully descriptive medical examinations are required, with emphasis upon the limitation of activity imposed by the disabling condition. Over a period of many years, a veteran's disability claim may require reratings in accordance with changes in laws, medical knowledge and his or her physical or mental condition. It is thus essential, both in the examination and in the evaluation of disability, that each disability be viewed in relation to its history. § 4.10 Functional impairment. The basis of disability evaluations is the ability of the body as a whole, or of the psyche, or of a system or organ of the body to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life including employment. Whether the upper or lower extremities, the back or abdominal wall, the eyes or ears, or the cardiovascular, digestive, or other system, or psyche are affected, evaluations are based upon lack of usefulness, of these parts or systems, especially in self-support. This imposes upon the medical examiner the responsibility of furnishing, in addition to the etiological, anatomical, pathological, laboratory and prognostic data required for ordinary medical classification, full description of the effects of disability upon the person's ordinary activity. In this connection, it will be remembered that a person may be too disabled to engage in employment although he or she is up and about and fairly comfortable at home or upon limited activity. I am having a little bit of trouble finding the references these two cover some of what I am talking about. I thought it was pre stabilization ratings criteria but that doesn't fit. Just because you take medication for a condition doesn't eliminate the condition it treats it. To evaluate the disability you have to consider the functional effect on the Veteran if they were not taking the medication to treat the condition. Ill have to come back to this when I find the other references I was wanting to post, specifically the mental health references.
  15. Say it isn't so, the VA throwing a smokescreen on numbers, the VA would never do that, right, I mean more plainly stated the VA numbers will always be played with, much like the regulations and evidence in Veterans' claims. Same old tactic just acclimated to todays access of information. That's just my take on what is happening. Modernization of the claims process. Delay, deny, and hide, didn't want to write die. Although not far from the mark in most instances. Transparency, is only as good as accurate, contemporary factual data.
  16. I almost forgot and important point on this. Never just go off what eBenefits states, doing so can lead to disappointment. But when you get the decision and it is in black and white, for the most part, this is a solid sign that the VA got something right.
  17. I have to say that this is a good sign of some things that go on the VA that are good, slap me a good one, yes the VA can at times do right by the Veteran. Hopefully this will get service connected, there have been some changes in the presumptive conditions for Iraq and places that had burn pits used. Although, my opinion on this, the VA has a long way to go with the health effects of burn pits and the disabilities they can and will cause, it is a good step in the right direction. If the evidence is there, and the records support it, the service connection process should be started. Eventually their MD or your own IMO will make the connection. The VA knows the regulations surrounding a claim and what it takes to grant, getting them to follow and do what the claimant is entitled to is another matter all together. I still say this is a step in the right direction though.
  18. Ah I really can't describe the sense of calm that a good cup of coffee can give a person.  Yes I know that caffeine is a stimulant but to sit down and sip on a good cup of Joe with one sugar and some steamed  half and half accompanied by a toasted cinnamon raisin bagel with whipped blueberry cream cheese, well, I may be simple but this just really hits the spot for me.  

  19. I read you Lima Charlie on that one. Keep after it man. Don't let them sly away from what you were due when you were due the compensation and benefits. With your last comment, I think they, the VA, has been trying to napalm those books and not being discreet about that either, at least from what it seems.
  20. Howdy folks been having technical difficulties lately, and wow a few inches of the white stuff here in OK. Been driving me bonkers not getting some riding time on the Vespa.  Cold weather and now snow.  If only there were enough snow for snow mobiles, I think I would give a go.

  21. I think this would be great for you to do, since the doctor is familiar with you and your conditions. They may not do this but you will not know until you ask but the likelihood is increased if you have a good relationship. On experience it has been a few of several dozen for me to write a nexus letter. It can be done. Just be honest and respectful as always. Courtesy always goes a long way. JMO
  22. Say what, what do they mean does not apply, legacy or new AMA process, the law doesn't suddenly change because of a different appeals process. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!
  23. Hopefully it stays under 38 CFR because you loose a lot of rights and benefit of doubt doctrine under CUE, that is a whole other playing that I would try to avoid playing on, you loose a lot of leverage. You are correct though I did overlook that part and it is important. This "but will not be earlier than the date of receipt of the supplemental claim." is what is an issue. If you make the timelines through the appeal process then the effective date should be the earlier, when the original claim was submitted, maybe Im just not processing this correctly. I think I have more reading and dissecting to do.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use