allan

INVESTIGATIVE LINKS http://abyss.usask.ca/~roebuck/forensiclinks.html

The Merck Manuals A trusted source for medical information available free online. http://www.merck.com/pubs/

NEUROMUSCULAR DISEASE CENTER Washington University, St. Louis, MO USA http://neuromuscular.wustl.edu/

Your Link to Virtual Hospital's Wealth of Patient Information http://www.uihealthcare.com/vh/

Medical Dictionary An online search engine http://medical-dictionary.com/

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/

Subject: [VeteranIssues] Proposal to Ease Aid for G.I.'s With Stress Disorder Date: Aug 29, 2009 11:18 AM Note: Always be suspicious, when someone says I am from the Govt, & I am here to help you..Very few VA Drs Will ever state it appears to be service connected. Look's like old hard-line VA staffers are putting one over on VA Sec. (s) ColonelDan" August 26, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/us/26vet..._r=3&ref=us Proposal to Ease Aid for G.I.'s With Stress Disorder By JAMES DAO Under fire from veterans groups and Congress for its handling of disability claims, the Department of Veterans Affairs is proposing new regulations that it says will make it easier for veterans to seek compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder. The proposal is intended to lower the burden on noncombat veterans who claim they developed PTSD in the service and to speed processing of those claims, which represent a significant part of the 82,000 disability claims the department receives each month. Current rules require veterans who have received diagnoses of PTSD to document that they experienced traumatic events during service that triggered the disorder. For veterans who did not serve in combat units, such proof can be difficult to find given the unevenness of military record keeping. But veterans' advocates have argued that many noncombat troops, including truck drivers and supply clerks, have experienced such events, which include roadside bombs, firefights, mortar attacks or the deaths of friends. Despite receiving diagnoses of PTSD, many of those troops struggle to receive disability compensation. The proposed rule would eliminate the requirement to document triggering events, provided veterans with PTSD could show that they were in places and performed duties where such events might have occurred. Their symptoms must also be consistent with the trauma they claim to have experienced. By some estimates, 20 percent of troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have PTSD. In a news release on Monday, the secretary of veterans affairs, Eric K. Shinseki, said, "The hidden wounds of war are being addressed vigorously and comprehensively by this administration as we move V.A. forward in its transformation to the 21st century." Dennis M. Cullinan, national legislative director for Veterans of Foreign Wars, called the proposed change "a big plus" for veterans. Mr. Cullinan cited the example of a truck driver in Iraq who might have experienced repeated roadside bomb attacks but whose military record would not have shown combat duty. Mr. Cullinan also said that changing the policy administratively was faster than waiting for legislation. A bill in Congress that would make similar changes, sponsored by Representative John Hall, Democrat of New York, faces opposition because of the projected cost, nearly $5 billion. But some veterans' advocates responded skeptically to the proposed regulation, which now must undergo a 60-day review period. "Whenever the V.A. touts a proposed compensation rule change that it says will 'make it easier for a veteran to claim service connection,' red flags go up all over the place," a veterans' advocate, Larry Scott, wrote on his Web site, vawatchdog.org. Critics said the proposed rule would still require veterans to prove a connection between a traumatizing event and their PTSD, even when that connection was not clear cut. Strict application of that requirement could lead to many rejected claims, they say. Katrina J. Eagle, a veterans' lawyer in California, said the proposed rule would also require veterans to receive diagnoses from department-employed or approved psychiatrists and psychologists. Currently, veterans can receive diagnoses from their own psychiatrists. "This is their way of being able to control the diagnosis," Ms. Eagle said. "I don't see how this is going to make it easier." But other veterans' advocates said the proposed requirement on using department psychiatrists seemed like a reasonable means to reduce fraud and standardize diagnoses. Meaghan Smith, a spokeswoman for Mr. Hall, said that he thought the proposed rule change was "pretty significant" but that he would study it closer to make sure it was "as inclusive" as his bill. "Keep on, Keepin' on" Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL "Colonel Dan" See my web site at: http://www.angelfire.com/il2/VeteranIssues/

Subject: [VeteranIssues] Pass the word about Free email news about Veteran issues Date: Aug 29, 2009 7:24 PM From: Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL, Col, AUS, Ret, Life member: AM Legion, DAV, AMVETS, MOAA, USDR, NGAUS, Sons of Legion: Please forward. Pass the word about Free email news about Veteran issues to other Vets & Posts & Orgs. Go to web site, click on messages on left side to review past messages. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VeteranIssues Veteran Issues is an email newsletter. It's purpose is to inform individuals, and organizations of issues and news of importance to Veterans and Military Retirees. Join one of the oldest, largest, and fastest growing free veteran newsletters, founded in Oct 98. This is not a chat list. Information and issues comes from individual veterans from around the world, as well as a variety of news media sources, veteran organizations, and government agencies. For some issues recipients are asked to take some action to help solve or publicize the problem. To contact their congress, or pass to local media or local officials. Some key national level veteran activist, politicians, many local Veteran Posts, and media persons are current subscribers. Use the material sent as needed in local bulletins, email lists, etc Add a link to us on other Web sites & blogs. Join now to be informed, and to add your voice to Veteran Issues. To subscribe go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VeteranIssues/join or send an email to: VeteranIssues-subscribe@yahoogroups.com Veteran Issues has a Web site at: http://www.angelfire.com/il2/VeteranIssues/ Questions, and Issues can be emailed to: colonel-dan@sbcglobal.net Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL, Col, AUS, Ret, List owner/Moderator Just Google or search for “Veteran Issues” and/or “ColonelDan” and you’ll find me "Keep on, Keepin' on" Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL "Colonel Dan" See my web site at:

I still use dialup. I've been running searchs for hadit since the mid 90's & used dialup the whole time. Believe me I wish I could afford more than the 28k I get through dialup like peoplepc. It would make researching must faster. Since I recieved a virus this last week, my main computer with 256 ram is down. Now i'm using my wifes laptop which is even slower.

Have you appealed the denied claimed issues & kept them going? An attorney may be able to resolve it quicker than an NSO. Have you contacted any Veterans attorneys? This link may help you. http://www.vetadvocates.com/ Did they do a neurophsychological examination on him? Have you applied for Social Security Disability for him? Or Veterans Pension? Here's a link to Pension benefits information. http://www.vba.va.gov/VBA/benefits/factshe...ive_pension.doc Form for Pension Veteran's Application for Compensation and/or Pension (Fillable) http://www.vba.va.gov/pubs/forms/VBA-21-526-ARE.pdf Here are the requirements for Unemployablity. http://www.vba.va.gov/VBA/benefits/factshe...onnected/iu.doc

Healing House Dedicated At Spokane VAMC. The Spokane (WA) Spokesman-Review (8/27, Graman) reports, "The Native American Veterans Healing Center was dedicated at the Spokane Veteran Affairs Medical Center on Wednesday." Officials with the VA "said the structure was built in recognition of American Indian contributions to the US armed forces with the understanding that warriors cannot be healed physically until they also are healed spiritually." The facility "incorporates two sweat lodges, one for women and one for men. http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?n...le&sid=8403

Breaking NEW RESEARCH FROM BOSTON VA Confirms Gulf War Veterans Health Changes Related to Sarin Gas Posted on August 27, 2009 by dsnurse Breaking NEW RESEARCH FROM BOSTON VA Confirms Gulf War Veterans Health Changes Related to Sarin Gas Gulf War Syndrome Researchers Blame Sarin Gas and Toxic Exposures by Lourdes Salvador Toomey and colleagues, researchers at the Boston Veterans Administration Healthcare System, confirmed that Gulf War deployment is associated with subtle declines of motor speed and sustained attention as influenced by exposure to toxicants during deployment. Toomey found that exposure to sarin gas released during the Khamisiyah destruction is correlated with long-term reduced motor speed in veterans that has not resolved after 10 years. Self-reported exposure to these toxicants is also significantly associated with attention deficits. Ten years after the war, deployed veterans are still in poor health and perform significantly worse on cognitive tests than non-deployed veterans. Gulf War veterans complaints include: Poor cognition. Slowed motor function. Memory Loss Chronic Fatigue Skin Rash Hair Loss Headache Muscle pain Gastrointestinal Disorders Cardiovascular Changes Chemical Sensitivity These health alterations point to potential long-term, permanent impairment from toxicant exposure. The symptoms of Gulf War veterans are analogous to a group of multi-system illnesses increasingly seen in the general population, notably: multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), and fibromyalgia (FM). These illnesses all share a common pattern of initiation and, thus, they may share a common etiology (cause) in long-term, permanent impairment from toxic exposure. Reference Toomey R, Alpern R, Vasterling JJ, Baker DG, Reda DJ, Lyons MJ, Henderson WG, Kang HK, Eisen SA, Murphy FM. Neuropsychological functioning of U.S. Gulf War veterans 10 years after the war. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2009 Jul 29:1-13. [Epub ahead of print] http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?n...le&sid=8399

NEW Research on Mortality of Gulf War and Vietnam Conflict Veterans Shows EXCESS Mortality Rates Posted on August 27, 2009 by dsnurse EXCESS Mortality Rates in Shorter Time Period after Gulf War vs Vietnam War In the publication just available on pubmed entitled, A systematic review of post-deployment injury-related mortality among military personnel deployed to conflict zones. Authors Knapik JJ,etal. from the US Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, USA show the following results: Compared with non-conflict-zone veterans, injury-related mortality was elevated for veterans serving in Vietnam during 9 to 18 years of follow-up. Similarly, injury-related mortality was elevated for veterans serving in the Persian Gulf War during 3 to 8 years of follow-up. Much of the excess mortality among conflict-zone veterans was associated with motor vehicle events. The authors state the following hypotheses to account for the excess mortality in conflict-zone veterans included post-traumatic stress, coping behaviors such as substance abuse, ill-defined diseases and symptoms, lower survivability in injury events due to conflict-zone comorbidities, altered perceptions of risk, and/or selection processes leading to the deployment of individuals who were risk-takers. The authors recommend further research on the etiology of the excess mortality in conflict-zone veterans.---Full ABSTRACT from pubmed in the Journal BMC Public Health follows: BMC Public Health. 2009 Jul 13;9:231. A systematic review of post-deployment injury-related mortality among military personnel deployed to conflict zones.Knapik JJ, Marin RE, Grier TL, Jones BH. US Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, USA. joseph.knapik@us.army.mil BACKGROUND: This paper reports on a systematic review of the literature on the post-conflict injury-related mortality of service members who deployed to conflict zones. METHODS: Literature databases, reference lists of articles, agencies, investigators, and other sources were examined to find studies comparing injury-related mortality of military veterans who had served in conflict zones with that of contemporary veterans who had not served in conflict zones. Injury-related mortality was defined as a cause of death indicated by International Classification of Diseases E-codes E800 to E999 (external causes) or subgroupings within this range of codes. RESULTS: Twenty studies met the review criteria; all involved veterans serving during either the Vietnam or Persian Gulf conflict. Meta-analysis indicated that, compared with non-conflict-zone veterans, injury-related mortality was elevated for veterans serving in Vietnam (summary mortality rate ratio (SMRR) = 1.26, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) = 1.08-1.46) during 9 to 18 years of follow-up. Similarly, injury-related mortality was elevated for veterans serving in the Persian Gulf War (SMRR = 1.26, 95%CI = 1.16-1.37) during 3 to 8 years of follow-up. Much of the excess mortality among conflict-zone veterans was associated with motor vehicle events. The excess mortality decreased over time. Hypotheses to account for the excess mortality in conflict-zone veterans included post-traumatic stress, coping behaviors such as substance abuse, ill-defined diseases and symptoms, lower survivability in injury events due to conflict-zone comorbidities, altered perceptions of risk, and/or selection processes leading to the deployment of individuals who were risk-takers. CONCLUSION: Further research on the etiology of the excess mortality in conflict-zone veterans is warranted to develop appropriate interventions. PMID: 19594931 [PubMed - in process] http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?n...le&sid=8400

Date: Aug 26, 2009 9:22 PM AO Month Response http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/C...nthresponse.htm Kelley

Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 9:33 AM Subject: FW: Guam AO Award VA Appeals Court Agent Orange win for people who were on Guam. Pass along to anyone fighting VA for Guam benefits http://www.countyofkings.com/vetserve/Vete...0on%20Guam.html Citation Nr: 0527748 Decision Date: 10/13/05 Archive Date: 10/25/05 DOCKET NO. 02-11 819 ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Boston, Massachusetts THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus secondary to herbicide exposure. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Massachusetts Department of Veterans Services WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL The veteran and his brother ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. J. N. Driever, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from December 1966 to December 1970, including in Guam from December 1966 to October 1968. This claim comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2002 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Boston, Massachusetts. The veteran and his brother testified in support of this claim at a hearing held at the RO before the undersigned in May 2004. In September 2004, the Board remanded this claim to the RO via the Appeals Management Center in Washington, D.C. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. VA provided the veteran adequate notice and assistance with regard to his claim. 2. Diabetes mellitus is related to the veteran's active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Diabetes mellitus was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C.A. 1110, 5102, 5103, 5103A (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. ?? 3.159, 3.303 (2004). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION VA's Duties to Notify and Assist On November 9, 2000, the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), codified at 38 U.S.C.A. ?? 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107, 5126 (West 2002), became law. Regulations implementing the VCAA were published at 66 Fed. Reg. 45,620, 45,630-32 (August 29, 2001) and codified at 38 C.F.R. ?? 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 and 3.326 (2004). The VCAA and its implementing regulations are applicable to this appeal. The VCAA and its implementing regulations provide that VA will assist a claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate a claim but is not required to provide assistance to a claimant if there is no reasonable possibility that such assistance would aid in substantiating the claim. They also require VA to notify the claimant and the claimant's representative, if any, of the information and medical or lay evidence not previously provided to the Secretary that is necessary to substantiate the claim. As part of the notice, VA is to specifically inform the claimant and the claimant's representative, if any, of which portion of the evidence is to be provided by the claimant and which portion of the evidence VA will attempt to obtain on behalf of the claimant. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has mandated that VA ensure strict compliance with the provisions of the VCAA. See Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002). In this case, VA has strictly complied with the VCAA by providing the veteran adequate notice and assistance with regard to his claim. Regardless, given that the decision explained below represents a full grant of the benefit being sought on appeal, the Board's decision to proceed in adjudicating this claim does not prejudice the veteran in the disposition thereof. See Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384, 392-94 (1993). Analysis of Claim In multiple written statements submitted during the course of this appeal and during his personal hearing, the veteran alleged that he developed diabetes mellitus as a result of his exposure to herbicide agents while serving on active duty in Guam. His military occupational duties as an aircraft maintenance specialist allegedly required him to work in an air field, the perimeter of which was continuously brown due to herbicide spraying every three months. The veteran also alleges that he recalls seeing storage barrels at the edge of the base, which he now knows housed herbicides. Following discharge, Anderson Air Force base in Guam, where the veteran was stationed, underwent an environmental study, which showed a significant amount of dioxin contamination in the soil and prompted the federal government to order a clean up of the site. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. ? 1110 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. ? 3.303 (2004). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. ? 3.303(d). Subsequent manifestations of a chronic disease in service, however remote, are to be service connected, unless clearly attributable to intercurrent causes. For the showing of chronic disease in service there is required a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity, and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time, as distinguished from merely isolated findings or diagnosis including the word "chronic." Continuity of symptomatology is required only where the condition noted during service is not, in fact, shown to be chronic or when the diagnosis of chronicity may be legitimately questioned. When the fact of chronicity in service is not adequately supported, then a showing of continuity after discharge is required to support the claim. 38 C.F.R. ? 3.303(b). In some circumstances, a disease associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents will be presumed to have been incurred in service even though there is no evidence of that disease during the period of service at issue. 38 U.S.C.A. ? 1116(a) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. ?? 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e) (2004). In this regard, a veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to a herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service. 38 U.S.C.A. ? 1116(a)(3). Diseases associated with such exposure include: chloracne or other acneform diseases consistent with chloracne; Type 2 diabetes (also known as Type II diabetes mellitus or adult-onset diabetes); Hodgkin's disease; multiple myeloma; non- Hodgkin's lymphoma; acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy; porphyria cutanea tarda; prostate cancer; respiratory cancers (cancer of the lung, bronchus, larynx, or trachea); and soft- tissue sarcomas (other than osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, Kaposi's sarcoma, or mesothelioma). 38 C.F.R. ? 3.309(e) (2004); see also 38 U.S.C.A. ? 1116(f), as added by ? 201© of the Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-103, 115 Stat. 976 (2001). These diseases shall have become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more at any time after service, except that chloracne or other acneform disease consistent with chloracne, porphyria cutanea tarda, and acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy shall have become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within a year after the last date on which the veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service. 38 C.F.R. ? 3.307(a)(6)(ii). The last date on which such a veteran shall be presumed to have been exposed to an herbicide agent shall be the last date on which he or she served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era. "Service in the Republic of Vietnam" includes service in the waters offshore and service in other locations if the conditions of service involved duty or visitation in the Republic of Vietnam. 38 C.F.R. ? 3.307(a)(6)(iii). The Secretary of Veterans Affairs has determined that there is no positive association between exposure to herbicides and any other condition for which the Secretary has not specifically determined that a presumption of service connection is warranted. See Notice, 59 Fed. Reg. 341, 346 (1994); see also 61 Fed. Reg. 41,442, 41,449 and 57,586, 57,589 (1996); 67 Fed. Reg. 42,600, 42,608 (2002). Notwithstanding the aforementioned provisions relating to presumptive service connection, which arose out of the Veteran's Dioxin and Radiation Exposure Compensation Standards Act, Pub. L. No. 98-542, ? 5, 98 Stat. 2,725, 2,727-29 (1984), and the Agent Orange Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-4, ? 2, 105 Stat. 11 (1991), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has determined that a claimant is not precluded from establishing service connection with proof of direct causation. Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also 38 C.F.R. ? 3.303(d). In order to prevail with regard to the issue of service connection on the merits, "there must be medical evidence of a current disability, see Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 143 (1992); medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. See Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff'd, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary. The Secretary shall consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case before the Secretary with respect to benefits under laws administered by the Secretary. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C.A. ? 5107 (West 2002); see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). The veteran's service medical records reflect that, during service, the veteran did not report herbicide exposure. In addition, he did not receive treatment for and was not diagnosed with diabetes mellitus. His DD Form 214, DD Form 7 and Airmen Performance Reports dated in March 1968 and October 1968, however, confirm that he had active service from December 1966 to December 1970, including at Anderson Air Force base in Guam from December 1966 to October 1968. He has submitted copies of articles indicating that Agent Orange may have been stored and/or used on Guam from 1955 to the late 1960s, which is the time period during which the veteran served there. These articles also reflect that in the 1990s, the Environmental Protection Agency listed Anderson Air Force base as a toxic site with dioxin contaminated soil and ordered clean up of the site. Given this evidence, particularly, the articles reflecting the latter information, and the veteran's testimony, which is credible, the Board accepts that the veteran was exposed to herbicides during his active service in Guam. The veteran did not serve in Vietnam; therefore, he is not entitled to a presumption of service connection for his diabetes mellitus under the aforementioned law and regulations governing claims for service connection for disabilities resulting from herbicide exposure. As previously indicated, however, the veteran may be entitled to service connection for this disease on a direct basis if the evidence establishes that his diabetes mellitus is related to the herbicide exposure. Post-service medical evidence indicates that, since 1993, the veteran has received treatment for, and been diagnosed with, diabetes mellitus. One medical professional has addressed the question of whether this disease is related to such exposure. In June 2005, a VA examiner noted that the veteran had had the disease for 12 years, had no parental history of such a disease, and had served in Guam, primarily in an air field, which was often sprayed with chemicals. She diagnosed diabetes type 2 and opined that this disease was 50 to 100 percent more likely than not due to the veteran's exposure to herbicides between January 1968 and April 1970, when he served as a crew chief for the 99th bomb wing on the ground and tarmac. She explained that such exposure, rather than hereditary factors, better explained the cause of the disease given that the veteran's parents did not have diabetes. As the record stands, there is no competent medical evidence of record disassociating the veteran's diabetes mellitus from his in-service herbicide exposure or otherwise from his active service. Relying primarily on the VA examiner's opinion, the Board thus finds that diabetes mellitus is related to the veteran's service. Based on this finding, the Board concludes that diabetes mellitus was incurred in service. Inasmuch as the evidence supports the veteran's claim, that claim must be granted. ORDER Service connection for diabetes mellitus secondary to herbicide exposure is granted. "Keep on, Keepin' on" Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL "Colonel Dan" See my web site at: http://www.angelfire.com/il2/VeteranIssues/

Subject: [VeteranIssues] Proposed Rule - Stressor Determinations for Posttraumatic Stress DisordeDate: Aug 27, 2009 1:26 PM Go to this web page to make a comment on the new proposed rules for PTSD in the federal register. http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/hom...900006480a10bea AN32 - Proposed Rule - Stressor Determinations for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (Document ID VA-2009-VBA-0023-0001) Comments on the proposed rule will be accepted until Oct. 23. A final regulation will be published after consideration of comments. To see VA Press Release go to: http://www1.va.gov/opa/pressrel/index.cfm. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/ http://frwebgate6.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/T...action=retrieve Federal Register: August 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 162)][Proposed Rules] [Page 42617-42619]From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov][DOCID:fr24au09-15] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 3 RIN 2900-AN32 Stressor Determinations for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its adjudication regulations governing service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) by liberalizing in some cases the evidentiary standard for establishing the required in-service stressor. This amendment would eliminate the requirement for corroborating that the claimed in-service stressor occurred if a stressor claimed by a veteran is related to the veteran's fear of hostile military or terrorist activity and a VA psychiatrist or psychologist confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD, provided that the claimed stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the veteran's service and that the veteran's symptoms are related to the claimed stressor. This amendment takes into consideration the current scientific research studies relating PTSD to exposure to hostile military and terrorist actions. It is intended to acknowledge the inherently stressful nature of the places, types, and circumstances of service in which fear of hostile military or terrorist activities is ongoing. With this amendment, the evidentiary standard of establishing an in-service stressor would be reduced in these cases. This amendment is additionally intended to facilitate the timely VA processing of PTSD claims by simplifying the development and research procedures that apply to these claims. DATES: Comments must be received by VA on or before October 23, 2009. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted through http://www.Regulations.gov; by mail or hand-delivery to Director, Regulations Management (02REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; or by fax to (202) 273-9026. (This is not a toll free number). Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to ``RIN 2900-AN32--Stressor Determinations for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.'' Copies of comments received will be available for public inspection in the Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Room 1063B, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except holidays). Please call (202) 461-4902 for an appointment. (This is not a toll free number). In addition, during the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at http://www.Regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Kniffen, Chief, Regulations Staff (211D), Compensation and Pension Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-9725. (This is not a toll-free number.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs has authority under 38 U.S.C. 501(a)(1) to prescribe regulations governing the nature and extent of proof and evidence required to establish entitlement to benefits. In addition, under 38 U.S.C. 1154(a), the Secretary is required to ``include in the regulations pertaining to service-connection of disabilities'' provisions requiring ``due consideration'' of the places, types, and circumstances of a veteran's service. These statutes provide authority for this proposed amendment of PTSD regulations. Current regulations governing service connection of PTSD are provided at 38 CFR 3.304(f). Under this provision, service connection for PTSD generally requires: (1) Medical evidence diagnosing PTSD; (2) medical evidence establishing a link between a veteran's current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and (3) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. In some cases, the requirement to establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor can be met based on the veteran's lay testimony alone, provided that there is an absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary and that the claimed stressor is consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of the veteran's service. Such cases are those described under Sec. 3.304(f)(1), when the evidence establishes a diagnosis of PTSD during service and the claimed stressor is related to that service; under Sec. 3.304(f)(2), when the evidence establishes that the veteran engaged in combat with the enemy and the claimed stressor is related to that combat; and under current Sec. 3.304(f)(3), when the evidence establishes that the veteran was a prisoner-of-war and the claimed [[Page 42618]] stressor is related to that prisoner-of-war experience. Currently, in all other cases where service connection for PTSD is claimed, VA regulations require credible supporting evidence corroborating the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor before service connection can be established. VA is proposing to amend Sec. 3.304(f) by redesignating current paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs (4) and (5) and adding a new paragraph (3), stating that, if a stressor claimed by a veteran is related to the veteran's fear of hostile military or terrorist activity and a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or a psychiatrist or psychologist with whom VA has contracted, confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD and that the veteran's symptoms are related to the claimed stressor, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and provided the claimed stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the veteran's service, the veteran's lay testimony alone may establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor. VA proposes to limit the confirmation of a claimed stressor to an examination by a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or a psychiatrist or psychologist with whom VA has contracted, to ensure standardization and consistency of mental health evaluations and reporting of these evaluations, which will be based upon uniform VA examination protocols. Under 38 CFR 4.125(a), all mental disorder diagnoses must conform to the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (1994) (DSM-IV). According to DSM-IV at 427-428, the first diagnostic criterion for PTSD is: The person has been exposed to a traumatic event in which both of the following have been present: (1) The person experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others; (2) The person's response involved intense fear, helplessness, or horror. The evidentiary liberalization we propose in new Sec. 3.304(f)(3) is consistent with DSM-IV criteria for a PTSD diagnosis, which include experiencing or confronting ``a threat to the physical integrity of self or others'' and ``intense fear, helplessness, or horror'' in response. Also consistent with DSM-IV, the proposed new Sec. 3.304(f)(3) defines ``fear of hostile military or terrorist activity'' to mean that ``a veteran experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or circumstance that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of the veteran or others, such as from an actual or potential improvised explosive device; vehicle-imbedded explosive device; incoming artillery, rocket, or mortar fire; grenade; small arms fire, including suspected sniper fire; or attack upon friendly military aircraft, and the veteran's response to the event or circumstance involved a psychological or psycho-physiological state of fear, helplessness, or horror.'' A claimed stressor must be consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the veteran's service. Additionally, the proposed regulation change is consistent with scientific studies related to PTSD and military troop deployment. In the recently published Gulf War and Health: Volume 6, Physiologic, Psychologic, and Psychosocial Effects of Deployment-Related Stress (2008), the National Academies' Institute of Medicine (IOM) reviewed studies on PTSD in veterans who served in Vietnam, the Gulf War, Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). The IOM review analyzed the long-term mental and physical health effects of ``deployment to a war zone.'' The stressors associated with ``deployment to a war zone'' were not limited to combat because [A]s military conflicts have evolved to include more guerilla warfare and insurgent activities, restricting the definition of deployment-related stressors to combat may fail to acknowledge other potent stressors experienced by military personnel in a war zone or in the aftermath of combat. Those stressors include constant vigilance against unexpected attack, the absence of a defined front line, the difficulty of distinguishing enemy combatants from civilians, [and] the ubiquity of improvised explosive devices. * * * (Summary, p. 2) The IOM ``considered that military personnel deployed to a war zone, even if direct combat was not experienced, have the potential for exposure to deployment-related stressors that might elicit a stress response.'' (Introduction, p. 13) Based on these IOM findings, VA is proposing to reduce the burden of showing the occurrence of an in-service stressor if the claimed stressor is related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity, and is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the veteran's service. The proposed amendment is intended to reduce the time devoted to VA claims development and research of the claimed stressor that is required to adjudicate claims for service connection for PTSD. VA will instead rely on a veteran's lay testimony alone to establish occurrence of a stressor related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity, provided the claimed stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the veteran's service, if a VA mental health professional opines that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD and that the veteran's symptoms are related to the claimed stressor. The proposed amendment would benefit all veterans and would not be limited to veterans serving during the current OEF and OIF. Improved timeliness, consistent decision-making, and equitable resolution of PTSD claims are the intended results of the revised regulation. Paperwork Reduction Act This document contains no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The Office of Management and Budget has approved the collection of information provisions that are related to this proposed rule under OMB control number 2900-0001 (VA Form 21-526, Veterans Application for Compensation and Pension) and under OMB control number 2900-0075 (VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This proposed rule would not affect any small entities. Only VA beneficiaries could be directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this proposed rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604. Executive Order 12866 Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Executive Order classifies a ``significant regulatory action,'' requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a [[Page 42619]] sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this proposed rule have been examined, and it has been determined to be a significant regulatory action under the Executive Order because it is likely to result in a rule that will raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Unfunded Mandates The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on State, local, and Tribal governments, or on the private sector. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers and Titles The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers and titles for this rule are 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability and 64.110, Veterans Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for Service-Connected Death. List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3 Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, Health care, Pensions, Radioactive materials, Veterans, Vietnam. Approved: June 29, 2009.John R. Gingrich,Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs. For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA proposes to amend 38 CFR part 3 as follows: PART 3--ADJUDICATION Subpart A--Pension, Compensation, and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation 1. The authority citation for part 3, subpart A continues to read as follows: Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless otherwise noted. 2. Amend Sec. 3.304 as follows. a. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (f). b. Redesignate paragraphs (f)(3) and (4) as paragraphs (f)(4) and (5) respectively. c. Add new paragraph (f)(3). The revision and addition read as follows: Sec. 3.304 Direct service connection; wartime and peacetime. * * * * * (f) Posttraumatic stress disorder. Service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with Sec. 4.125(a) of this chapter; a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. The following provisions apply to claims for service connection of posttraumatic stress disorder diagnosed during service or based on the specified type of claimed stressor:* * * * * (3) If a stressor claimed by a veteran is related to the veteran's fear of hostile military or terrorist activity and a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or a psychiatrist or psychologist with whom VA has contracted, confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder and that the veteran's symptoms are related to the claimed stressor, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and provided the claimed stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the veteran's service, the veteran's lay testimony alone may establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor. For purposes of this paragraph, ``fear of hostile military or terrorist activity'' means that a veteran experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or circumstance that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of the veteran or others, such as from an actual or potential improvised explosive device; vehicle-imbedded explosive device; incoming artillery, rocket, or mortar fire; grenade; small arms fire, including suspected sniper fire; or attack upon friendly military aircraft, and the veteran's response to the event or circumstance involved a psychological or psycho-physiological state of fear, helplessness, or horror.* * * * *[FR Doc. E9-20339 Filed 8-21-09; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 8320-01-P "Keep on, Keepin' on" Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL "Colonel Dan" See my web site at: http://www.angelfire.com/il2/VeteranIssues/

Daniel Krasnegor with Goodman, Allen & Filetti No, testvet didn't recomend him. But he was recomended from hadit.

It's been over three months since I sent in the forms to CAVC and two months since I signed the papers for an attorney in Verginia to represent me. I havn't heard anything from him yet, but did get a letter from attorney Ken Carpenter that said he read my case & would like to represent me. That is very encoureging to me. I was hoping to get Carpenter, but feel confident the attorney I signed with can handle it. At what point in time does an attorney submit something to the CAVC to get the ball rolling? My BVA case was decided on May 15th. Thanks for any replies. Allan

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/dailylog.html

A hearing before the judge usually take 6 months to a year to set up. I can tell you now things work much faster when you have an attorney. Those representing themselves usually get the slow line. Calling, finding out who is working your claim & getting them motavated is what your attorney would be doing. Almost everyone gets denied the first time around. As long as your Dr has stated that your unable to perform even sedantary work, you should win with the ALJ.

[The VA does not look at SSI as income, but they(VA) do count SSD as income, dollar for dollar.] "INCORRECT statement" VA pension does count SSI, SSDI and any other form of income. They will deduct dollar for dollar from Pension. It took three months to recieve my back payment of SSI & later SSDI and the VA dropped my pension until it was payed back. Failure to report the incomes may result in fraud charges by the DVA. If your income from SSI, SSDI & combination of SC benefits exceed Pension levels, they will drop your Pension benefit. My medical expenses put me far below the pension threshold, but i'm still denied getting back on pension.

Good advice purple. One problem with highliteing is when the VA needs to make copies, it will show up black. It's better to draw a line under it, all the way out to the edge of the paper. That way you can put a number next to it to include it on your contents front page for reference. When your finished, number each page including your contents page & put the total on the contents page. That way they know at a glance how many was sent. It makes it harder to go loosing the most important evidence you send in.

Little Money Handed Out By Massachusetts Vets Program. The Boston Globe (8/19, McQuarrie, 349K) reports, "Three years after Massachusetts officials pledged to pay 'Welcome Home' bonuses of up to $1,000 to veterans returning from active duty, some $10 million set aside for the program still languishes in state coffers. State officials and veterans advocates alike say they are vexed by the lack of participation in the program, launched in 2006 as a goodwill gesture toward" post-9/11 vets, "many of whom went to war." Officials "speculate that some returning veterans are reluctant to accept handouts or to tackle the application process," but "some also blame bureaucratic problems that have made it harder for officials to track down" eligible vets. The Globe notes that Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor Timothy Murray "said that he and a delegation of Massachusetts officials met this year with Eric Shinseki, the US veterans affairs secretary, and urged him to provide more accurate discharge information to the states." Shinseki "replied that he would consider including a current e-mail address on discharge papers, Murray said. Such a move would greatly improve the tracking process, according to the lieutenant governor." http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachus...s_bonus_option/ SOURCE: http://www.veteranstoday.com/article8314.html

Fifth Amendment--Rights of Persons http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt5.html

Gulf War Veterans and America Needs answers NOW in regards to adjuvants Swine Flu, Gardasil, and Anthrax Vaccines Posted on August 19, 2009 by DSNurse http://www.veteranstoday.com/article8310.html