Jump to content

Poopsy Woopsy

Third Class Petty Officers
  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Poopsy Woopsy

  • Rank
    E-3 Seaman

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Military Rank
    wife of LCPL Marines
  • Location
  • Interests
    Don's interest were his family.. PTSD kept him from having any friends. He did everything with his family and me. I didn't mind. He had a moving business and loved to drive cross country. Collected "Oldies & Goodies" and was very good at pool. and pinoccle cards. Loved his garden, green fried tomatoes and iced tea every day but most of all he loved "ME".

Previous Fields

  • Service Connected Disability
  • Branch of Service
  • Hobby
    making them pay, VA

Recent Profile Visitors

485 profile views
  1. Just one more "Quick Question! If all those diseases they gave him SC, Granted as contributory, (on VA's Death Decision letter) how come he doesn't have a rating for them ? They have been claimed before! Lost again!! Thanks Berta. I am so sorry you went through so much. Especially when I have a really good idea of it all..
  2. Hi Berta Sounds like we have a lot in common!! your last note made me sad then mad!! Why oh why are our Vets being treated like "Dirt" at the VA.. It's unconscionable !!!! I have right now 8 stories I'm sending in to show proof of worsening of his PTSD!! to be able to get TDIU. They are stories of horrible neglect and shameful incidents from Dr's and people at the VA here in Washington State. I believe they will no longer need that evidence if I just send in the SSI info, (I just spent all morning at the SS office and got a clear answer this time.. So I am pretty sure that it's a given, but I want them to "READ" my horror stories!!! ) Get this, I found a ratings paper that states: IHD, BPN, ED, and DMII (denied, not in country) then on the bottom of the letter it states: DEATH Decision = "Grant" = SC Death, as contributory Cause of death: for CHF, COPD, PFibrosis, Coronary Artery Disease, and [PTSD - Non-Combat/Other stressor Verification]. First of all I just "Luckily" ran across a medical paper that stated IHD & CHF are THE SAME!! so how can they Service connect one and not the other. The IHD is denied from AO. so how do you SC (Contributory) for the other one as cause of death and not IHD just because they are looking at it from another angle?? (I get it one's under "Contributory" and one is not in county) should be Granted thru contributory for IHD too. and if all this is SC. How are they NOT Rated?? P.S. I know I have exausted you so I am going to ask: Do you want answers to your last questions? Thank You! and all you do to help our vets! My heart is broken for these young men that had to "Give EVERYTHING"
  3. Thank you Berta, deeply for your extensive information.. It is very much appreciated. I have printed out all your information so I can go over it and see what I need to do. Like you, I have done so much work on this already that I would like to finish with it. Hopefully I wont be my own worst enemy. I will never be at your caliber of knowledge but your information surely brought me up a notch. I got my husband 70% Ptsd the "First time around" (Some VA people told me I was lying and said that wasn't possible) I hope that is not what is giving me false hope!! I believe I understand enough to make it hopefully come together, but again the more I learn the more confused I get. I know I am willing to fight and put in the time.. I just remember everything he went through and how the VA treated him so poorly.. He was so young! Thank you, and everyone willing to help.. "We are NOTHING if we are not about THEM!! God Bless all who have given.. You have my utmost respect!! P.S. I cant find acronym for IMO / IME? and don't know what it is!
  4. Good morning Berta and guys! Here are a couple more answers to questions you asked Berta.. (please forgive me if I make things confusing, Just know I "REALLY" appreciate your help!) Anyway! You asked If Vet had any NSC ratings.. "NO". thats where I get confused Why was he not rated for all he was being seen for at the VA!! (or was he and I just didn't know, don't they tell you? ) I did read in some of his medical files where they state information pertaining to the vet and they mention in the notes about his prior Heart issues and said they were NSC. does that mean he was rated then? just because someone stated it somewhere in med records? So i assume heart and Diabetes were never rated other than what i just mentioned but it was also stated in the Dr.s note for cause of death that got him DIC. It was: cause of death "sudden cardiac death" but it also stated: his PTSD also had an affect on his heart and causative in his death as well. So he's stating 2 causes! Everthing ties together.. stressors on the heart and DMII with worsening of PTSD all should be enough for TDIU. I didn't know it was possible to get more than one DIC.. So should he have gotten another DIC then for heart etc.. all I suppose too late for any such thing. One other question! I read something from a lawyer that stated you should give any and all pertinent information on your NOD (like me mentioning stating Secondary stuff that is all connected to his PTSD and his death and also the DMII which he should have been rated 100% SC or NSC either way. it was significant and should have been a rating! Is it because somehow while taking care of all his medical needs I should have been aware that I needed to file a ratings paper for all this stuff. thats when I wonder should not his Dr.s been somehow helping me in this?
  5. I am sory if I am not clear: will state some obvious my husband was 70% for PTSD his death certificate was causative for CHF, COPD, PF, Coronary Artery disease. All non VA. They granted DIC and said: WE have determined that you are entitled to both DIC and death pension. They opted to give me DIC with getting ChampVA. Service connection for cause of death is granted. (does this mean that everthing on the death certificate is now SC?. they looked at cardiologists statement that stated: It is my opinion that his cause of death likely was due to a ventricular arrhythmic event leading to a sudden cardiac death (He states would have been prevented with a defibrillator AS RECOMMENDED) Now heres where it gets good.. he also states: more likely than not his PTSD also had a marked deleterious effect on his heart and was a contributing factor to this vet's death I would consider his ptsd as causative in his death as well.!!!! Then I find this letter:: to the dept of veterans affairs: (Skipped some parts) it is my opinion that Mr. Hudgeons is totally and permanently disabled due to the conditions discussed below and that they are related to his military service. Evidence of his medical diagnosis is: Interstitial PF. specifically pages A,B, C, D. ( I don't know what that means and dont seem to have those pgs.) He then mentions I have reviewed his history on board the ships and is also my opinion "more likely than not" PF was caused by exposure to AO including causation of secondary conditions of IHD, DMII, PN, aggrivated by said primary condition.. Problem being it is not physically signed just typed; Signed; Dr. Hescamp. Really wondering if He wrote it or not.. Isnt TDIU almost a given with 70% PTSD if there is obvious stressors? and what about the Cardiologist's letter stating PTSD was also a cause in his death.. Doesn't that cinch everything? his medical records also state a Chronic mood disorder!! what am I missing here??? This is why I keep saying it seems cut and dried, I do take into consideration it is the VA and nothing is for sure!! I also have mounds of medical papers from the VA about all his ER visits, Hospital stays, 49 meds, and trips to the VA which are in the high double digits. If that has all been pre-determined including his DMII. and I have said he fits category for 100% DMII, shouldnt that in and of itself be Enough?? He should have gotten a rating for DMII as well, not to mention all the medical secondary effects it has, that have been stated in records time and time again. Sweet Jesus, I'm tired..
  6. Hi guys Berta Cant you distinguish a stressor from the "worsening of PTSD? that is what they are asking for. I had to show the worsening of his related claim.. Has the PTSD worsened thus getting TDIU? The first paper states the denial and the second states that the claim for individual unemployability is "RE-OPENED! and yes my husband was 70% for PTSD. It makes sense that you wouldn't want to re-hash stressors. but like I said the stressors related to him getting PTSD would be different from the (after his military time where the original stressers were from) stressors that I would talk about now for aggrivation of secondary conditions and ultimately TDIU. I now don't know if all my work should even be submitted. They really just want me to state that SSI is not the reason for his disability.. Go figure!! he is already disabled with 70% PTSD any help would be appreciated ... lost for sure now!! a
  7. I think I will still go ahead and file my NOD with all that I presented to them because I can always file a CUE if I can find relevancy for it.. Back to the "Grind" hoping for finality soon. At least for now!!
  8. they never stated his ship was not on the list just that he was not in the waters that were presumptive for AO Will check on the DMII denial letter and then scan and place, but i think it always piggy backed on other decisions
  9. couple things left out I filed an FIOA for my C-file. Also i have record of several RVN on his ship papers,, he was on the USS Vancouver and USS Tripoli,, and a couple others but dont think they entered RVN, but for some reason I now can't find the evidence of the Tripoli.. but if not so I don't know where I would have gotten that notion!
  10. Thanks for your input also Berta, Not sure if PII is correct. I didn't check (from exhaustion) if I was using it correctly.. It was in regards to not disclosing certain things in his C-file..and their right to not disclose certain guarded information. and believe me there doesn't seem to be much. in the C-file. I have stacks of pertinant medical records that seem to be relevant to the many things asked for. but only a few as in probably less than 10 or 20 seem to be there. Everything seems to be intertwined. like if he had gotten TDIU (it seems to me it would be hard pressed to be able to deny it) then Secondary would play into it along with a very early effective date.. As for the social security situation.. I am just trumping their denial with the evidence that shows PTSD was first (now realizing that they should be going back to In-service for PTSD because the evidence i gave them started there and it was accepted) oh geez!! If I weren't fighting for my husband and I was fighting for me. I would give up... but I guess that's what they want! I was so happy this morning because I had gotten almost all my ducks in a row with each medical paper relevant and aligned with its proper statement of case..I thought!! every time I think I am close, something else pertinant rears its ugly head.. AGAIN, thank you for not tireing of me and my inadaquacies. You both have been very helpful and my fuel to keep going.
  11. thanks Broncovet Social Security was given under SSI, not disability..on his back (a monetary need/really related to PTSD) which is a condition that was also being taken care of at the VA and in his medical records. Anyway I just stated PTSD predates the Back issue.. Well I thought I was almost done with this NOD nightmare when I realized while perusing around HADIT, I read Berta's info on CFR 4.6 / CUE. If i stated in husbands claim for PTSD that issues raised for PTSD started in BOOTCAMP with 2 deaths. shouldn't the claim take in the time starting with the evidence in service? should they have not taken that into conisderation as EED seeing how they used that evidence in giving a positive claim for PTSD. Would this be a clear CUE???
  12. Berta, Bronco; I am DIC and i get champVA They said I was eligible for two things but that DIC was better. They reopened this claim on their own after saying I missed the chance to send addtional information.. Doesn't suprise me.. I couldn't function mentally for a while.. It was all quite a shock. I have been doing a lot of research (Bronco). Get a lot from here. Some days I feel like a lawyer and should get paid big bucks. Anyway. PTSD 70% was easy but now I am just going to state that it is "As likely as NOT" that its the PTSD not the SSI (NOT SSDI) back, thus getting his TDIU. So even though they are stating the SSI is the problem.. they must concede that it isn't even SS"D"I. AND I have evidence to show progression of PTSD that started "Before" the back SSI. The cardiologist letter that got me DIC also related the cause of death to both PTSD "AND" CHF. This is why after redirecting thinking of SSI to PTSD. I want to take the opportunity to Add "presumptive, for CHF, DMII, PN and everything that was on the AO claim. (He also fits the 100% criteria for DMII) Would it be "Presumptive or secondary or both?? Can you do that on an NOD?? I have stacks of medical evidence, some stating "Chronic" which I know is helpful. Just not sure if NOD is the place. Finally, what happens if now with the "New" blue water ruling.. that all those medical issues are all rated For AO?? it seems so obvious the poor guy had several of the maladies on the list and became apparant at a fairly early age. What comes first the chicken or the egg? Well It will probably be years before there is a re-ruling for old claims on AO, so will move forward with TDIU and secondary or presumptive stuff. Thanks, PoopsyWoopsy
  13. remember Broncovet, the claim is for TDIU and in the NOD, because it also pertains at 100% to TDIU. It has not been given a rating just a denial through AO. Figured I could get it rated through secondary SC with additional evidence along with TDIU evidence. Because it stands on its own.. just didn't know if I could piggy back it so to say on this NOD
  14. Its Me Poopsy Woopsy again.. I just found some information "Specific" to my question about SSI/TDIU.. It hit the nail on the head... Don's SSI should make it easier to substantiate the claim for TDIU not make it harder to claim.. As I stated it seemed like they wanted me just to verify in words that the SSi did not trump the obvious TDIU.. Why I don't know.. seems again obvious to me. Hope i am not missing something here.
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines