timetowinarace

It's not something I know allot about but I agree with Chuck. The VA should have infered TDIU but they don't always do so. They have no binding obligation to do so. If they do not infer and you do not file, ultimatley it is your responcibility.

No, it won't be enough. In order to pursue a TBI claim, you will need 'objective' tests to confirm/prove a DX for TBI. Objective tests are imaging such as CT, MRI and SPECT or Neuro-Psychological tests. 'Subjective' symptoms can get a TBI DX and now get better ratings but is less likely, especially for head injuries that occured years prior. If you wish to pursue it, my opinion is you will need to seek private Neuro-Psychological testing.

Good luck. Location seems to matter for TBI asessments so maybe they will do it right this time. Depression and anxiaty are both common with TBI. My main misdiagnoses was depression depending on what kind of doc I was seeing through the years. The medical doctors all said depression and sent me to psychs who said no mental health issues and they sent me to medical doctors. I went round and round like that for years. I finally gave up on the TBI and filed claim for depression. The psychiatrist at C&P had actually read my file and suspected TBI and requested testing. VARO denied depression claim cause examiner stated it was caused by TBI in service, no tests were done and TBI claim was not re-opened. Thankfully the Doc had told me what I needed and I got testing done privatley. In other words, don't give up.

Unfortunatly, this still happens. I was hoping things were changing, but the are not. Took 13 yrs for my diagnoses, was told many times head injury could not cause my problems. Educate yourself. TBI Guide-free

Glad to help. You might want to highlight these items with a highlighter before sending them. You know, spell it out to the rater. Otherwize they may just see a bunch of records that say nothing of TBI and look no closer. Fatigue was my biggest complaint also.

It sounds like you are in good shape for your claim. I'm afraid the proccess is just slow. The congressional inquirey will likely slow things down more. At this point my advice is not a popular one but accurate I think. Kick back, do some fishing(or whatever you can enjoy) and wait.

It appears to me you have plenty of medical evidence to support your claim. As stated by the other poster, it will come down to whether the VA finds the injury occured in service. The only thought I have that might help is whether you have medicall records that state you have complained of these symtoms through the years. They don't need to show a diagnoses of TBI but just that you mentioned/complained of the symptoms. This would prove without a doubt that the injury is not new. I reccomend getting ALL of your medical records and going through each and every word to see if you had mentioned any TBI symptoms to medical personell. If it is in the records, send them to VARO. If it is not, do not send them. Send only the records that have complaints of these symptoms. I won my claim 12 years after injury and was not diagnosed for years. However, I did have extensive records of complaining about the symptoms within a year of the injury. I harp about neuro-pshycological testing on this board but I cannot stress the importance of it enough. While you allready have diffintive/unarguable proof from MRI and don't need the diagnostic side, a often overlooked fact is that you cannot get more than 40% under DC8045 without this testing.

I had difficulties the my TBI claims yes, but they were different than yours. I was rated before the current rating system was in place. The new rating proccess is difficult for raters. You'll have to have seperate ratings for some issues like tinnitus and headaches. It is likely your rating will be lower than it should be when you get it.(just a heads up) Some questions for you: Do you see a neurologist for your headaches/dizziness? Have you had neuro-psychological testing? The testing is the single most important part of a TBI claim.

If it makes you feel any better, I also did not lose conciousness nor do i have amnesia for the event. I was also told by VA I did not have a head injury. I'm rated 100% P&T for my tbi. In other words, don't give up. You may not want to know my whole story though. I'm still learning the lengths the VA went to deny me. Last Nov(2010) I was seen by my neuro and he told me I have a brain lesion that showed on MRI. A concern for stroke due to location and all that. Problem is, my MRI was done in 2003. Was told no TBI cuz nothing on MRI at the time. I suggest a different approach. I hadn't posted on Hadit in quite some time but I'll try to help you if you want.

I would have to guess that your Phych Dr. is probably correct. The wrong box was checked. Impressions listed Concussion and Concussion IS a TBI. Also, I believe referal for MRI is the next step in the evaluation. It appears that you are progressing through the screening process and that would not be the case if the answer was truly NO. I think if it were me, I would attempt to have the answer corrected. In the future, a busy rating specialist may glance at that answer and deny a claim.

When I joined Hadit in '05 there were no moderaters. I was very unhappy with the Va system to put it mildly. Thankfully, I was allowed to vent my frustrations and learn how to deal with the VA. I was not allowed to do so on another claims site, I didn't go back. Today, when I open the VA Claims Research page here at Hadit, there are no less than six closed topics on the first page. I had not posted a comment to any of them but it pains me to see them closed. Why would it bother me when I did not have an opinion to share? Because I come here to help veterans. It helped me a great deal to be able to vent my frustrations. While there have always been those that may disagree with some of my opinions, it always felt good that someone understood them, even though they did not agree. These disagreements have helped me a great deal. Most of you that may read this understand that most of our frustrations brought about by the VA cannot be expressed to those that do not share the VA experience, thus cannot be expressed anywhere but here. It is shame that veterans must walk on eggshells and hold their frustrations in in order to be heard on this site. In this post, I will not hold back. I will name names and speak bluntly. While I greatly respect the knowledge and opinions of the moderaters on claims issues, it is no secret that I'm not a fan of the moderating. I don't know wich moderater closed the thread, "Can You Sue Your Service Organisation For Mistakes". You were used. While 'Widow1' was venting frustration, 'Windy City' chose to get upset and "hope" that someone would "step in and finally put an end to all this". He said it made his "blood boil". 'jbasser' informed him the thread was "a Topic that is within the parameters of the rules" and suggested Windy City not read it. So knowing what is likely to get a thread closed, Windy City responds to a post in all capitol letters(indicating shouting). Sure 'nuf, the thread is closed. That Whiny City is a wiley old wolf. Seems he only wants the wind to blow in his direction. The moderater was suckered. Widow1 was no longer allowed to vent her frustrations. Worse yet, every time she tried after that to vent her frustraions, Carlie shut her down cold. Even though Widow1 had done little else in the original thread but vent. But, another thread also referancing this same original thread was allowed to continue because it kissed moderater butt. I'm going to go way out on a limb here and suggest most of Hadits members are adults. I think I can assume as much since children are not allowed to join the service. As adults, I'm thinking we don't need parents telling us we shouldn't argue. Also, we are not playing a game. No referee is necissary. I agree with the no politics policy. But I don't agree with closing a thread because Whiny City get's his feelers hurt because veterans don't like the way they've been treated by their VSO's. I'm tired of the whining about COLA but for those that want to vent about it, their threads should not be closed. Even if I disagree. There is more to helping veterans than telling them where to find the reg's pertaining to their claim. They need to vent their frustrations over this god awfull process. In the end, this is just a rant borne out of frustration like the rest of them. I've voiced my concerns over this many times. I'm quite positive it will change nothing. The "this is not a democracy" phrase is repeated over and over again, though it is a tired and childish excuse. Despite having to actually ban very few people, and more helpfull people have actually left due to the parenting, the moderators minds have been closed for quite some time on the issue. It has proven to be impossible for them to deal with the occational trouble maker without casting an iron fist over the rest of us. The openess of the site was usefull to me back in '05 when I needed it. The very thing that attracted me to it is now gone. So, I will go. Though I have been hard on them in this post, I wish eveyone the best. Hadit has gone a direction I no longer want to be a part of. It's too bad because there are no other sites like it. The very thing that caused it to grow has been removed. Good luck to everyone. PS. Larry, this is the exit door. LOL

Funny this thread has not been closed also. All other threads concerning the topic discussed here have been closed.

I think the next step is the hardest. I can't remember it exactly but you have go through an appeal board. I think the board has to find error in the judges ruling. If they find error, you will get another ALJ hearing(remand).

do you have an attorney? Appeals are very difficult to win after an ALJ decision. I did it, so it can be done. In my case, on the first alj hearing, I believe my 100% VA rating actually hurt my case. The judge asked many times about how much I got from VA. He didn't say it outright but it was obvious from his questions and the denial statements he felt I should not get both. Very frustrating. I know how you feel.

Larry, Hadit is much like the Hotel California. You can check out any time you want-but you can never leave.........(sorry, I couldn't reproduce the whining guitar with the keyboard) Besides that, even if you go, the Hat stays. :)

If he worked and was approved for SSDI it was under the table. The answer is no. You cannot work while waiting. Either you misunderstood or it was a fraudulent claim.

di·ag·no·sis (dg-nss) n. pl. di·ag·no·ses (-sz) 1. Medicine a. The act or process of identifying or determining the nature and cause of a disease or injury through evaluation of patient history, examination, and review of laboratory data. b. The opinion derived from such an evaluation. undiagnosed [ˌʌndaɪəgˈnəʊzd] adj (of a medical condition, a problem, etc.) not having been identified And this from http://www.nvlsp.org/Information/ArticleLi...ATIONUPDATE.htm GULF WAR COMPENSATION UPDATE January 4, 2002 The method created by Congress in 1994 to compensate Gulf War illnesses has, in practice, resulted in several problems. Congress and the VA recently provided some solutions. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) The VA has found preliminary evidence that veterans who served in the Gulf are nearly twice as likely as their non-deployed counterparts to develop ALS. Because of this finding, the VA will now automatically grant claims from veterans who served in the Gulf August 1, 1990, to July 31, 1991, and have subsequently developed ALS. This rule affects eligible veterans, or their survivors, immediately, even though the study is just preliminary. The ratings will be permanent even if the studies’ results later change. If a Gulf War veteran ever filed a VA claim for ALS and or an undiagnosed neurological condition, he or she or their survivor should refile their claim. Participation in Disease Specific Studies The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is currently conducting medical research concerning the association, if any, between veterans who served in the Gulf and certain diseases. It is important that all veterans who may be affected participate in these studies. However, some veterans who are currently being compensated on the basis of an "undiagnosed illness" have declined to participate in the studies due to the fear of losing service-connected compensation and health benefits if they are "diagnosed" with a specific disease. Public Law 107-103 gives the VA the authority to protect compensation for undiagnosed illnesses when VA determines that such protection is necessary to ensure adequate participation by veterans in VA-sponsored medical research. This is particularly important for research that requires a high level of participation to achieve its objective. The new law gives the VA authority to provide such protection whether the research was conducted before, or after the date of enactment of the new law and requires the VA to list the applicable research projects in the Federal Register. Clearer Definition of Undiagnosed Diseases The 1994 statutory scheme was intended to provide compensation to deployed Gulf War veterans who suffer from disabilities that cannot now be diagnosed or defined, and for which other causes cannot be identified. In interpreting this legislation, VA issued a General Counsel Opinion holding that only disabilities which cannot be attributed to "any known clinical diagnosis" could be compensated. Many Gulf War veterans reported disabilities related to poorly understood multi-symptom disabilities which may be classified as "undiagnosed" by one physician or referred to as "chronic fatigue syndrome" or "chronic multi-symptom" illnesses by another physician. This resulted in disparate treatment of veterans with similar signs and symptoms. In order to address this problem and to insure that the law is interpreted to provide benefits for similarly disabled veterans, Public Law 107-103 expands the definition of undiagnosed illnesses to include, “medically unexplained chronic multisymptom illnesses,” such as, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, and irritable bowel syndrome. Any other chronic multi-symptom illness or any other ill-defined illness or combinations of illnesses may be added if the VA deems it appropriate. The law lists 13 specific signs and symptoms of undiagnosed illness the VA is to consider in deciding whether to add other diseases. The VA will issue a directive shortly directing payment to veterans with the three specific diseases listed above.Expansion of Period of Time Symptoms to Manifest The January 1, 2002 date regarding initial onset of undiagnosed illnesses was extended to December 31, 2006 by VA regulation and Public Law 107-103 gives the VA the authority to extend this “delimiting” date for another five years. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Reports The NAS now has until September 30, 2011 to report on underdiagnosed illnesses. Problem with Definition of Deployment to a War Zone The compensation scheme still does not include veterans stationed in Turkey, Israel and the surrounding areas. These veterans took similar medications and were exposed to depleted uranium as were those veterans covered by the 1994 law.

I'm going to have to some research on this. I think both of you are correct. The confusion seems to lie in the definition of 'diagnoses'. I don't believe I was 'diagnosed' with undiagnosed chronic fatigue. Rather, I think it was confirmed that I have chronic fatigue and the cause was undiagnosed. In other words, I'm wondering if it is accurate to call confirmed conditions as diagnosed conditions. I know this seems like splitting hairs but I also have the opinion that GW vet's be very carefull about diagnoses. Having a doctor confirm you have a condition isn't the same as a diagnoses, I don't think. I do know, that the key to SC GWI conditions is it's the CAUSE or etiology of the condition that is relevant.

It won't hurt to send in the report. I seem to remember someone here was trying to get their results to send in to VARO. I have had the exam but it is not in my C-file, so I don't think when VARO requests medical records from VA the report is included. You will have to be persistant, they do not like to award these types of claims and when they do they are very low ratings. I think it's good to have every GW veterans information in the registry. The main reason is it adds to our numbers making it harder for the VA to deny there is a GW related problem. Sooner or later they are going to have to give us some consideration. We started out better off than the AO vet's because of the presumptive SC early on but now we are being treated much the same way. The VA will continue to admit as little as possible. Being added to the registry shows a higher percentage of sick GW vets than they are admitting. Sorry, most of my post is opinion. Not helpfull to your claim.

I don't know how VARO will use the exam. I would hazard a guess that it would have little impact for claims purposes but I don't know what's in your file or the exam. Most of what they will be looking for will be in your treatment records and C&P's. Also, I hope you did not file for "Gulf War Syndrome" specifically. The claim will be denied no matter what as there is no GWS ratable condition as far as the VA is conserned. You can file for certain symptoms and conditions if the cause of them is "unknown". Since I don't know what specific symptoms and conditions you suffer, I'll give an example. I was rated for "undiagnosed chronic fatigue". Someone may pop in and post the regs for you, I don't have time right now. But you should be able to read through past posts in the GWI section here and find them easy enough.

I agree 100%. My opinion is that the researchers have no ill intent towards veterans with this report. That the basic facts are true. I will say that it is possible that someone with ill intent to try to use this report to their advantage. However, because of the things you mentioned in your post, I don't believe any such use would be taken seriously. I do not believe it will come from the researchers that did the study.

It's true, sometimes statistics are inaccurate. More often the results of statistics are misinterpreted. I do agree with your last statement, "its pointless research that lends no creditable data in any real world situation". As you also mentioned, statistics have made gamblers rich. It works for 21, roulete(biased betting), and poker. Card counters and biased betters are banned from casinos because the statistics work. All marketers of consumer goods and services use statistics and demographics. Millions are spent each year on this information. My own thought's are that it must work. They continue to use them and make money. They are not comparing their demographics between US demographics and Russia's, yet somehow they are accurate enough to make billions with them. I wonder where these people learned about statistics? In a school? Some of them at MIT maybe? I'm going to guess that many of the bugs in statistical analisis have been worked out since Mark Twain's time. The only way to know if the results are skewed is through peer review. At this point I haven't seen one. Other than that, any claims that it is skewed is opinion.

Okay guys, flip me over. Time to cook the other side. LOL. I understand where everyone is comming from. I see it different. Sorry guys, but demographics are used in many studies. I understand you take offence to them as you read between the lines. These same demographics are used in TBI research. White low skilled males are many times more likely to suffer a TBI than any other demographic. It is not a racist comment. They are not calling us ignorant, or jerks, or anything else. It is a commonly used demographic. In TBI research this demographic is mostly used to show the higher risk taking group suffers more TBI's. It is also used in TBI research to show where the majority of comp seeking comes from. Yep, same group. I can provide links to this information if you doubt me. If anyone is offended by the demographics, they have been offended their whole life. These are common, often used demographics. To say their numbers are twisted is a guess. Unless you have done the numbers yourself or can cite published research that shows otherwise, I have to think their numbers are correct. My personall experience leads me to believe they are correct. Most of the VN vets I personally know that have become SC in the last few years for PTSD and/or AO are white low skilled males.

I was found incompetent. It does not matter what friends/relatives/fidiciary may say on the veterans behalf. My wife/fiduciary wrote that I was competent. The field examiner guy from the VA that sets up fidiciary and suggests how funds be used wrote a letter stating I was competent. The C&P examiner said "veteran may forget to pay his bills". Found not competent. He needs a MH professional to say he is competent and he will have a C&P. The C&P examiner must say he is competent. Now, all that said. If your brother wants something, all he needs to do is get a loan. The VA cannot refuse to pay the loan back. They might have a fit if he gives money to his parents and they will threaten to remove you as fiduciary. However if he gets a loan for a couple thousand, the VA cannot blame you as the fidiciary and they must allow you to pay back the loan. My wife is my fiduciary and I/we spend what we want how we want. If the VA was to give me problems and wife was removed as fiduciary and my comp micro-managed, I would get a monthly loan for what I wanted to spend. They can't stop me from doing that. Then they have no say in how I spend my money. They may learn I am quite competent.

I understand how you feel about this 'research' and I don't blame you. When I read it, I began to draw the same conclusion but decided to keep my mind open. I won't say you are 'wrong' in any way to feel the way you do. The reason I knew my opinion would be disagree'd with has to do with your paragraph above. I'm aware of how the VN vet's were treated in the 60's, 70's and 80's. I remember attacks on PTSD in the 90's and 00's also. Just a couple of years ago really. The recent attacks were blatant. There was no reading between the lines. They said fraud. If you could, I would like you to try to forget history for a minute. Re-read the article without the bias. Try not to add past experience between the lines. They are not guessing that lower skilled veterans are filing more claims. It is not an opinion. It's a fact. I don't know of a better phrase to use to describe the demographic. They could use lower skilled, low/average income, lower/middle class or what descriptive phrase would you have prefered?