[Not Qualified For E-Benefits !]

I have talked to the people at E-Benefits and they tell me I can't sign up for E-Benefits because I don't receive any compensation. I am at 0% SC. I thought I saw a post from someone that was on E-Benefits and they were 0%.

They tell me when I receive at least 10% they will be happy to sign me up.

[Waiver Of Regional Office Consideration]

Carlie, so my understanding to your response, the BVA will only look and decide any new evidence that I send to them. The RO will still send me to a C&P or any new exam and make some sort of decision on the results only from the new exams that they send me on.

I have been working on this claim for almost 6 years and don't want to screw this up now. I want to make sure that the information I send to the BVA or RO is done right this time, seeing that I will have to wait for another 2 or 3 years before someone makes a dedcision.

Thanks, Brian

PS Carlie, you asked me in my other post to post a copy of the original rating decision that granted SC for my PAT and assigned the 10%. I did post the decision but did not hear back from you.

[Waiver Of Regional Office Consideration]

What happens if I send in a "Waiver of Regional Office Consideration" to the BVA and receive a C&P exam or any other exam from the RO. Does the RO just forward the results to the BVA and let them deal with it? And does the BVA make all the decisions at that point? Not sure how that works.

[Carlie, Could You Please Take A Look At This]

Wings,

You had asked me if the Metoprolol was prescribed specifically for my SC PAT, or another related heart condition? The answer is yes, the Metoprolol was specifically prescribed for me back in 2008 for my PAT. (see my previous post where I posted this info).

If it was for the PAT, under the old diagnostic code, need for continuous medication is assigned a 30% rating. Where would I find the diagnostice code for this?

Thanks,

Brian

[Carlie, Could You Please Take A Look At This]

Carlie, I am attaching 2 pages that show my originaL rating decision FOR MY 10%.

Brian

Rating Decision 2-5-68 a.pdf

Rating Decision 2-5-68 page 2.pdf

[Carlie, Could You Please Take A Look At This]

I finally received my medical notes from the VAMC in Reno. I found in these notes where the VA Cardiologist prescribed Metoprolol on 06/10/08 for my SC PAT.

Part of this examination states ECG today normal except terminal R-sided forces.

1. CAD p stents - ok to have Plavix for 4 years. Today he has agreed to BB so will start metoprolol 12.5 mg BID if tolerates this can switch to

Atenolol 25 Titrate upward for BP and HR control.

2. lipids - will try adding fenofibrate 45 mg. Need to watch for muscle aches since significant interaction with simvastatin. Check LFP and LFTs in 2-3

months.

3. PAT - hopefully BB will help slow rate if occurs.

4. Anxiety/depression - watch for depression as starts BB, may help blunt peripheral effects of anxiety.

********************************************

The VA bills me for all my prescriptions except the Metoprolol which is for my SC PAT. So the way I figure this is the VA Medical doctors feel I need Metoprolol for my PAT because it has not gone away, in fact it has gotten worse over the years. I guess the VARO doesn't seem to understand this or they are refusing to read any of this.

[Carlie, Could You Please Take A Look At This]

Brian,

For VA rating purposes, PAT is classified under "diseases of the heart", 38 C.F.R. 4.104

The Navy diagnosed you with a heart disease (PAT) with 4.5 months of observation, testing and inpatient hospitalization.

Did the Navy assign your 10% rating, or was the rating assigned by the VA?

The VA assigned the 10%.

What diagnostic code (DC) was applied to the original 10% service-connection?

7013

~Wings

Post Script

See STAGED RATINGS

Where entitlement to compensation has already been established [1967] and an increase in the disability rating is at issue [2010] the present level of disability is of primary concern. Although a rating specialist is directed to review the recorded history of a disability in order to make a more accurate evaluation, see 38 C.F.R. § 4.2, the regulations do not give past medical reports precedence over current findings. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55 (1994).

Staged ratings are, however, appropriate for an increased rating claim when the factual findings show distinct time periods where the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms that would warrant different ratings. The relevant focus for adjudicating an increased rating claim is on the evidence concerning the state of the disability from the time period one year before the claim was filed until VA makes a final decision on the claim. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007).

VA changed the rating criteria for diseases of the heart [effective January 12, 1998]

Under former Diagnostic Code 7013, a 10 percent rating was provided for infrequent tachycardia attacks with a 30 percent assigned for severe frequent attacks. 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, Diagnostic Code 7013 (1997). Under the revised rating criteria, a 10 percent rating is warranted for supraventricular arrhythmias of one to four episodes per year of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or other supraventricular tachycardia documented by ECG or Holter monitor. A 30 percent rating requires paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or other supraventricular tachycardia with more than four episodes per year documented by ECG or Holter monitor. 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, Diagnostic Code 7010 (2010).

-snip-

Throughout the claims period, the Veteran has reported experiencing occasional episodes of tachycardia. While these episodes have not been confirmed on ECG or Holter monitor, the Veteran has carried a diagnosis of paroxysmal tachycardia during the entire claims period and he is considered competent to report symptoms such as an increased heart rate. Private and VA records document consistent complaints of palpitations and episodes of tachycardia characterized as sporadic, occasional, and intermittent dating from April 1996. The Board therefore finds that the Veteran's paroxysmal tachycardia has most nearly approximated infrequent attacks and a 10 percent evaluation is warranted under former Diagnostic Code 7013.

The Board finds that a rating in excess of 10 percent is not warranted under former Diagnostic Code 7013 (1997) or current Diagnostic Code 7010 (2010). Although the record documents complaints of tachycardia at various times during the claims period, there is no objective evidence of paroxysmal tachycardia and ECGs, Holter monitors, and stress tests conducted throughout the claims were negative for tachycardia. The October 2009 VA examiner noted that the Veteran had only a clinical diagnosis of paroxysmal tachycardia without clear objective evidence of the condition, and the May 2010 VA examiner further stated that the Veteran had never been to the emergency room or hospitalized due to tachycardia. The disability therefore does not most nearly approximate severe, frequent attacks of tachycardia or manifest four episodes per year documented by ECG or Holter monitor. The record does not establish that a rating in excess of 10 percent is warranted under the former or current criteria pertaining to paroxysmal tachycardia.

[Carlie, Could You Please Take A Look At This]

Thank you for confirming that my memory hasn't failed me completely!

Another question: Did the military diagnose you with heart disease? ~Wings

Nothing wrong with your memory. The Navy only diagnosed me with PAT. But I do have heart disease now.

[Carlie, Could You Please Take A Look At This]

Hoppy, You exemplify veterans advocacy. Someone must fight for the veteran where the "benefit of the doubt" most obviously presents a case for it. This is such a case.

If my memory is intact, I believe the evidence will also show that Brian (correct me if I'm wrong) was hospitalized for his PAT while active duty military for several weeks. That speaks of functional impairment at an occupational level.

I appreciate your reference to the laws and regulations regarding "reductions", in that "The BVA refers to claims that require re-instatement of benefits void ab initio based on an interpretation that the medical evidence was not properly developed in a reduction claim as required by existing laws ." I will research those laws more fully.

I support your arguments. ~Wings

"If my memory is intact, I believe the evidence will also show that Brian (correct me if I'm wrong) was hospitalized for his PAT while active duty military for several weeks. That speaks of functional impairment at an occupational level."

Wings, I was actually hospitalized at the US Naval Hospital from 7-5-66 to 11-16-66 , approx 4 1/2 months. I was wearing a monitor for a couple weeks, if my memory can recollect, and undergoing a lot of tests.

Brian

[E-Benefits]

bm, call the 1-800-827-1000 number and it will tell you!

NJ

NJ Thanks for your response.

BM

[E-Benefits]

I am pretty sure this question has been asked a million times, but how do you get an E-benefits acct? And how do I log in?

Thanks

[Carlie, Could You Please Take A Look At This]

BM6546

I have a rating decision from 1973. It looks much like yours with just letters and a few lines to justify my rating. My CUE got all the way to the Court before they discovered that the rating criteria for my condition had changed between the time I filed in 1972 and the time I got a decision in 1973. I hired a lawyer. You might consider it since you original claim is 45 years old. Those old claims really stink with much evidence ignored or excluded if it did not the purpose of the VA.

John999,

I have already talked to a lawyer but they can't take my case because I am in the middle of a remand. She told me if or when the VA denies me, at whatever level, that they do want to talk with me.

You mentioned that your CUE made it all the way to the Court. Can I assume that you won your CUE? And if so, did they pay all the retro?

Thanks, Brian

[Carlie, Could You Please Take A Look At This]

Carlie,

In the case I cited (http://www.va.gov/ve...es3/9228582.txt) in my position paper showing twenty years of retro The BVA did refer to it as a CUE claim. In that case they did cite a violation of 3.344 (A) cfr 4.1 and 4.2

Reductions must be based on the entire record and examinations which are less full and complete than those on which payments were

authorized may not be used as a basis for reduction.

38 C.F.R. § 3.344(a) (1991).

It is my interpretation that the above citation shows that the BVA did not consider that the duty to assist was sufficiently applicable to override the laws governing reduction examinations. The cases you cited were not denied citing that the duty to assist was over riding and could not be used for CUE. Duty to assist was not an issue. Unless you cite a denial of a reduction specifically stating that the VA is not required to obtain adequate exams and that such failure to obtain these exams in reduction claims is not a CUE, then I will consider this a mute argument.

an assertion of a failure to evaluate and interpret

correctly the evidence is not a valid allegation of CUE. See

Damrel v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 242, 245 (1994).

It is my position that Brian's case is not a question of failure to evaluate and correctly interpret. It is a question of whether or not the exam which only addressed a current 12 day history of symptoms and was silent for disabling features of the veterans condition identified in the smr was capable of showing improvement or that the condition was not ratable. The exam failed to address known features of the condition identified in the smr which would be used for the purpose of making a proper rating. I have read many CUE claims that were awarded 30 to 40 years later that involved symptoms noted in the SMR that were not considered at subsequent exams. These types of claims were CUE even in cases that were not reduction cases. In Brian's case his symptoms in the military were capable of interfering with employment. Brian was rated at 10%.

I found a reference within 3.344 dating back to 1961 at http://edocket.acces...38cfr3.344.pdf. The only problem I see is if this law was not in effect at the time of Brian's reduction exam. I do not have access to the old regulations.

In Brown V Brown they stated that there are other considerations available to show that an exam is inadequate other than 3.344 (A). Brown V Brown cited 3.344 © 4.1 4.2 It was those other considerations that I cited for Brian's claim.

Big Red,

I still laugh every time I see that little picture of you in the barrel of Agent Orange. Hang in there.

Others,

The argument is that the rater cited in his decision a single examination that did not investigate current symptoms of PAT for a time period that can be objectively identified as being longer than 12 days. As such the exam was not capable of determining improvement. It is not a question of what the report said. It is a question of whether or not an investigation of symptoms for a period of 12 days is an adequate exam to base improvement, or whether or not the veteran had a ratable condition. Additionally, the all exams including reduction exams are required to be based on the entire history of the veteran's condition with consideration given to the effects the condition has on employment. The exam did not address a known pre-existing disabling feature that interferes with employment. The rater stated that the veteran was currently employed. Whether or not he was employed does not fully answer the question as to whether or not there is an interference with employment. Again it is not what the rater stated as his interpretation of the evidence. The argument is the adequacy of the investigation performed by the C&P examiner as required by 4.1, 4.2 an 3.344 ( C ). The examiner did not investigate what accommodations or changes in employment were occurring.

Hoppy,

When I was a patient at the Naval hospital in 1966, I was there for approx 4 to 5 months. I was required to wear a monitor for approx 5 or 6 weeks and I had "several, well defined and documented" episodes of PAT. The Navy decided, based on those results, to discharge me and assigned me a 10% disability.

One year later, I had a C&P exam that lasted, maybe 15 minutes, and the rater determined that I was not eligible for a compensable condition. The exam I had at my C&P was not even close to all the tests while I was stationed at the hospital. The fact that I did not have a PAT attack at the C&P exam is what they are partly basing the results that my PAT was no longer there. Even though the rater stated that "cited exam discloses the veteran is steadily employed but complains of occasional dizziness, a heavy feeling in the chest and that his heart flutters". There is no wording anywhere that my PAT has gotten better or improved.

[64 Years Old]

Okay, I'll try to clarify some things. The difference between SSDI and SS retirement at age 62 is about 29% higher, not a dollar amount. The rate you get at 62, for SSDI, is the same rate as if you waited until 65 or 66(now) to retire. Some people get $2k SSDI and some get $800, depending on how much you earned and paid in over your lifetime. I believe they use the most current 10 yrs and take the highest 5 yrs to establish your rate. You can apply for SSDI even if you are already collecting SS retirement. As Chuck stated they will pay the difference, if awarded SSDI.

SSDI has a 5 month waiting period, where they don't pay anything. Those five months will be deducted from your established eligibility date of disability. It is extremely important that you use the day after the last day you worked as your date of disability onset, when applying for SSDI, especially if you haven't worked in a couple of yrs or longer, because SSDI may deny you based on lack of current "qualifying" quarters. Anyone needing to see their SS file can request an in-person viewing, with their local SS office. They will set it up and generally don't charge for the copying "you" do. They will set you up w/a desk, where they can keep you in view to make sure you don't add/delete/alter evidence.

You cannot receive Medicare until you've been on SSDI for 2 yrs, or until you turn 65yo(66yo now), whichever comes first.

pr

Philip, Thank you for correcting my mistake. I waited 2 years before I received Medicare.

Brian

"you have to wait 6 months and then you will get Medicare, regardless of your age"

[64 Years Old]

Also, once you qualify for SSDI, you have to wait 6 months and then you will get Medicare, regardless of your age. Here in Calif you can get Medicare or if you are very low income, you may qualify for Medi Cal. I can't remember what its called in most states. In Calif the Medi Cal program is being slashed left and right, so not sure how that will work in the future.

As long as they don't touch Medicare we should be alright.

[64 Years Old]

I just applied in september 1, I'm hoping to receive notice soon. Would be a nice gift for me and my wife. How much time does it usuallly take!I turn 60 in june

Normally, there is a 6 month waiting period to get accepted. But they will pay you retroactrive from the time you applied. I was approved my first time I applied back in 06 and received a nice check for over $10,000. Not sure how long the time period is now, with the way the economy is and the number of people applying for SSDI.

You can call them and ask them...if you can get through. Keep trying and you will eventually get someone on the phone. Or you can check their website for more info.

Brian

[64 Years Old]

Ok all this talk about SSDI has me thinking. I am 63, be 64 coming June,I am 50% on my hearing, and retired. I read where some was saying it is easier with age, So do any of you think I have a chance of getting approved?

I think it is definately easier when you are a little older, like me. Don't tell them you are retired....aren't you disabled? Although you are available to draw SS at 64 with early penalties, SSDI pays you a couple hundred more per month. Look at your SS paperwork that they send you every once in a while and look at the bottom where it tells you how much you will receive on SSDI. The amount you would get now from SSDI will take into account the actual amount you would receive when you qualify for your full SS retirement. In other words, the amount will not change when you reach full SS age. I am 99% sure of this because I am rapidly approaching 66 myself. I did check their website and also called them and they assured me that my amount I now receive will not change.

If I was you, I'm only saying, I would definately apply for SSDI. The main criteria with SS is are you able to do any kind of work for gainful employment?

Good luck...Brian

[Response From The Amc]

You have entered the Bermuda Triangle for claim issues.

Expect much of nothing and a long wait for even that.

JMHO

So the old saying "Hurry up and wait" applies here. I can wait forever if I have to. Hopefully, I am not going anywhere.

[Response From The Amc]

The AMC started out to only work BVA claims now it is jusr another VARO and does not have a good reputation either. In my opinion you should ask for a hearing and than at least it would go back to your VARO. Or get a lawyer.

I checked with a lawyer and they said they can not take my case because I am in the middle of a remand. Once I am denied they would like to talk to me.

[Response From The Amc]

I know I already asked this question.

Will I get a letter from the AMC telling me they have received my remand from the BVA?

And approximately how long does it normally take to receive something from them?

[64 Years Old]

I was 60 when I was approved for SSDI. The lady at the SS office told me that I was very close to my SS age and that it helps that you are in your 60's. It worked for me in my case.

[Carnival Cruise Lines]

Well bm6546 that is our plan, but first we must save up the money. I have looked into it and it is expensive. I thought I could drive my MH up and save NOT, that would be 15k and that is wayyyyy out of my budget. I am only 50% that =$770 a month. so must save much more

I would like to go on at least 1 cruise each year. I have been on 3 cruises in the last 4 years. Alaska, Mexican Riviera and the Western Caribean. So far, Alaska has been my favorite cruise because of all the wild life and nature.

I am hoping to go to the Panama Canal (2 weeks) in Nov 2012. But if I have to get an expensive IMO then that will be my vacation money shot to hell.

Maybe a miracle will happen with my claim and my friends at the VA.

[Carnival Cruise Lines]

IMO - the Alaskan cruises are great but ONLY if the weather is good.

Many times there is lots of rain and that is a real downer.

While on board - I personally am in my room very little but having my room

gives me a feeling of security incase I can't deal with things for awhile.

We also take a portable DVD player with us that also works on batteries

because cruise ships usually offer little in the way of TV entertainment.

JMHO

We went in August and were very lucky with the weather. It rained a couple times but wasn't foggy or cloudy so we got to see all the beautiful nature and the wild life. It was freezing when we went thru the Tracy Arm ice glaciers but was absolutely magnificent. That is where a balcony sure comes in handy.

I also like to have my room near by in case I get a little freaked out with all the people on the ship.

[Carnival Cruise Lines]

This happened to an associate of mine and her husband was also quarantined to the room.

We are doing a cruise for NY's eve - if I feel sick I will keep my mouth shut and just stay in my room

until I feel better.

Edited to add :

I emailed a copy of my DD214 and got the discount, so then I upgraded to a nice big

window and that raised my price right back up.

The only way to cruise is a veranda. I won't cruise in an inside room or a room with a window. Definately worth the extra bucks.

Brian

[Carnival Cruise Lines]

thanks for the message, we are thinking of an Alaska cruise, so is the discount offer to 100% or does any rate get you a discount?

You will love the Alaska cruise. I did that cruise in August 2010 and absolutely loved it. I have been on 3 cruises and can't wait to go again...as soon as I save up some money.