joevet

As I have stated, the VSO had already filed under 'Heart Disease'. Filing for all three of these heart conditions instead of simply filing Heart Disease would still leave it to the VA to assign a compensation rating of their choosing which would be the one paying the less compensation. The veteran, or a VSO that knew what he/she was doing, would have filed under PCI even though all three were listed on the medical report. This would have prevented the VA from screwing the veteran. No one has said, or even implied, that a veteran should file for what he thinks he has, but file using the medical diagnosis as provided by the doctor using the specific diagnosis that would be the most beneficial to the veteran. You should never file several ailments under a broad medical heading such as 'Heart Disease' or 'Mental Disorder' and leave it to the VA to choose the ailment for compensation. The veteran will get screwed every time.

This is exactly what I was talking about! Never give the VA an opportunity to screw you because they will not pass up that chance. The VSO filed simply 'Heart Disease' for me when I first had my heart problems. The doctor statement listed three aliments: Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, Coronary artery disease (CAD) and Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) angioplasty with two stents. The first two heart conditions have a compensation rating of 60% and the PCI has a 100% compensation rating for a minimum of three months. Give you one guess which heart aliment our friends at the VA assigned me for my compensation rating. Of course, if you have ever had any dealing with the crooks at the VA, you know without a doubt they used CAD so as to screw me out of at least three months of the higher compensation. Again, never leave it up to the VA to determine what your diagnosis should be. You have the obligation when filing to be very specific as much as possible, using your doctor statement, to file using the proper Code otherwise I guarantee you that the VA will screw you every time. You can't count on some one else to look out for your best interest. That is your responsibility. You can play dumb if you wish, but you will pay the penalty.

The bad thing about the VA is you have to file for whatever ailment that you have and not leave it to them to read the medical report and decide in your best interest. You can have a dozen doctor statement all with specific information about your worst medical condition, but if you don't file directly for that condition the VA will not consider it for disability. Don't made the mistake that the VA is on your side and working on your behalf. They will screw a veteran on every chance available. One must know, or try to find someone who does actually know which is very difficult, how to file correctly. For example you can have conditions under Code 7005 and 7017 but they are different. Disability under 7017 will pay 100% for three months at least to start while 7005 will not. If a veteran does not file under a particular Code, the VA will always choose 7005 to beat the veteran out of the three months of 100% compensation. Never leave it up to the VA to make decisions for you unless you want a good screwing.

Does the VA consider Code 7005 Ischemic heart disease, Arteriosclerotic heart disease, Atherosclerotic heart disease, or Coronary artery disease (CAD) and Analogous Code 7099-7017 coronary bypass surgery as Pyramiding? Conditions that are not in the VASRD are rated “analogously” with a condition that is in the VASRD. “Analogous” in this case means the condition that is closest to the overall condition, that best describes the main symptoms, or that has the same treatments. When rating a condition on an analogous code, the final code will most commonly look like this: 8099-8003. The first four-digits tells us that this condition is rated analogously. The second four-digits is the code the condition is rated on. To determine the first four-digits, take the first two digits of the second code and add 99 to the end. 8003 = 80__, and then just add 99 = 8099. Then add the second code to it with a hyphen between: 8099-8003 A coronary artery stent is a tube that is surgically placed in the arteries of the heart to keep them from collapsing. It is Analogously rated under code 7017, coronary bypass surgery as 7099-7017.

Thanks jbasser. I don't mind hypertension being rated as zero as long as it is considered SC. There are several other ailments that are linked to hypertension.

Buck, after thinking about it, I maybe in the predicament of which came first: the chicken or the egg. I have had hypertension for twenty years but the CAD for only three years officially. The VA has my medical records showing hypertension several years before the start of medication from both medical doctors and the hospital. It might be impossible to prove CAD caused the hypertension. Perhaps contributed to making it worst.

The reason for denials were not having a medical record of having HTN, etc... in the military. Yea, I have been approved for 60% based on CAD. But I have not thought of filing for HTN as SC to CAD. Have not been able yet to get a medical doctor to provide an IMO/IME stating HTN is a SC to diabetes.

I have not been refused compensation for diabetes and CAD. I have been denied benefits for hypertension, glaucoma and cataracts as secondary to diabetes. They said I had no record of having these ailments while in the military service. I seriously doubt if any young, healthy twenty year old in service would have such a record.

Thanks Buck! Your comments were very helpful. Hey, I like good ole traditional country music, too.

I have not had any earned income since I retired in 2015. I have pension income from my former employer, social security and VA benefits. I would not qualify for applying for Expediting under the above criteria. As far as the question concerning "any and all" types of work, I don't know. I will do some Internet research on the IU requirements. The "any and all" sounds a lot like the Social Security disability requirement of total disability.

My local doctor did one EKG after my heart stents but nothing since by either them or the VA. I only go once a year to see the local doctor. They have me on a strict low fat, no red meat diet. They said I have some small heart arteries blocked but they are too small for stents. I have never discussed my VA report with the local doctor. I don't know if they agree with the decision of the VA doctor. My local doctor used to work with the VA.

Again, thanks Gastone for your input. Sorry to say, but I don't follow what CAD, Sa, DX, FDC, means. I don't fully understand the IU. Is this based on age? Where can I find the IU Award Requirements so I can read it? I have just recently started trying to learn about all this VA filing and how to proceed. I have relied too much on the local VSO to handle my claim. All of this has been my fault by not being more proactive. I started medication for diabetes in 1997 but I didn't file for VA benefits until 2003. I filed only for diabetes but the VA denied hypertension as a secondary after reviewing my medical record. Why would they deny something I didn't even apply for? They must know that hypertension can be a secondary to diabetes to jump the gun and deny it. I didn't think anything about it. Didn't file an appeal or anything. When I had my heart problem, I went to the local VSO after another veteran told me I should file. The VSO filed for my heart and hypertension, glaucoma and cataracts. The VA denied everything except the heart. Their denial was based on that I had never complained about or had these ailment while in the military. The VSO never advised that I should get an IMO or anything else. Just left me hanging. I am glad I found this Internet site where you guys have already been through this jungle and can provide some assistance.

Gastone, I have not heard a word from the guy that works in the Nashville VA office. He was not a VSO but an employee of the Nashville VA office. Yes, I am 74 and retired with no actual earned income. I am not familiar with filing an IU claim. What is this and what are the benefits/purpose? The main secondary claim I was wanting is hypertension because there are several other potential SC's that might become a factor in the future due to hypertension. One of those is sleep apnea which I have. See these two reports concerning diabetes and hypertension affecting sleep apnea. http://www.aasmnet.org/articles.aspx?id=3935 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2799991/pdf/nihms-162897.pdf I have not file for sleep apnea waiting for approval of hypertension as a SC. As I have said, I have been very passive about filing for and following through with VA claims. I have had ptosis of both eye lids before entering service. Several doctors have recommend surgery. I didn't know until I started checking into my current VA claims that ptosis is covered under the VA claims. I agree that none of these SC conditions would rate over 10%. I am at 90% now but receiving compensation at 70% based on the weird system the VA uses. Any advice or information you can provide would be appreciated. Thanks.

Berta and Broncovet thanks for your reply and information. I have contacted seven local doctors and none of them will do an IME or IMO. They probably are not familiar with these types of reports/examinations or they don't want to get involved with the VA. I don't know of any local doctors that will do this and I have searched on the Internet. Dr. Bash and Dr./Attorney Anise came up as people who will file an IMO. I have contacted Dr. Bash using the form on his Internet site today. Of course I have not heard from him yet. I realize his fee is expensive but it appears I have no choice since I can't find a local doctor. I am hoping Dr. Bash at least will advise if he thinks I have a chance of being successful in obtaining approval before he accepts my case for the money only knowing I have little opportunity of winning. It is disheartening to hear the VA do not regard his opinions very highly. It is a shame a veteran has to be put through this type of hassle and expense to get approval for VA benefits.

Major problem! How does one get an IMO on a secondary disease? I have contacted three Ophthalmologists and four medical doctors requesting an examination and a letter/statement reporting, in their professional opinion, that my hypertension, glaucoma and cataracts could be "as likely as not" secondary ailments caused by my mellitus diabetes Type 2. None of them are willing to make such a statement including my long time PCP. I have three questions I hope someone can answer. (1) Is it a normal and acceptable proven medical fact that diabetes can cause these secondary aliments? Where is the evidence/medical research?; (2) Is it factual, and does anyone actually know for sure, that the VA will accept an IMO statement and approve these ailments as secondary? Is there anyone on this forum that has been successful filing such claims?; (3) And perhaps the most important question, where in the hell does one find a medical professional who will provide a IMO? If you know of a doctor that will provide such a statement, what is his/her name and contact information? Thanks to anyone who can provide real answers to the above three questions. I don't want to discuss generalization but actual proven factual information.

I am a Vietnam veteran. AO exposure has already been established in 2003. VA just will not accept that my ailments are SC to diabetes.

You are so correct. If a young solider had diabetes, hypertension, glaucoma, cataracts, etc........while in service, they would have kicked his/her butt out so fast their head would spin. When the VA deny a claim with a fully documented medical evidence of the veteran having these ailments with the standard excuse that the veteran had no report on his military service medical record of the ailment(s) while in service is a complete cop-out to screw the veteran. The VA has never denied that I have these medical conditions only that my military service does not show I had them while serving. As has been stated on this forum, they want an IMO paid for by the veteran stating that "as likely as not" the secondary ailment could have been caused by the primary disease. The VA doesn't know this nor does any doctor know for sure except medical research has been accepted as reliable indicating these other ailments can be secondary effects of the primary disease. The VA is a governmental agency and should be there to serve the veterans and not to screw them. During a C&P the VA doctors could save a veteran the expense and trouble of trying to obtain a letter from an IMO stating what they could easily do themselves.

It is obvious I have been too passive concerning filing for VA benefits. I am going to have to become more proactive and aggressive instead of relying on some VSO to handle my claim. One problem concerning hypertension is it has been so long and I have had three doctors during the twenty plus years. The current doctor does not have the actual medical records from when I finally started medication. I am scheduled to see the VA eye doctor tomorrow. He keeps a 'check' on my eyes because of the glaucoma and cataracts. He has me on Latanoprost eye drops with one drop in each eye every night. I am going to try and get something out of him. The VA had previously had me visit another private eye clinic and I have a copy of their report concerning glaucoma and cataracts. But it does not mention any possibility of these ailments "at least as likely as not" due to diabetes. I probably need to go back to them on my own and see what I can get from them. Of course being closely connected to the VA they may refuse to commit themselves. The eye doctor that originally advised me to get the quack doctor I was seeing at the time to prescribe medication for diabetes and HBP because both of these ailments would cause problems with my eyes is still in practice but working only a few days a month. His son runs the practice now, but they should still have my medical records. There is one thing I am sure of, the VA is not in the business of helping veterans. They will do everything possible against a veteran to deny a claim and never advise, or assist, in obtaining what needs to be done to help a veteran.

I was first diagnosed with diabetes in 1993, but the doctor I was going to would not prescribe medication saying sometimes the side effects were more harmful than the disease. My eye doctor told me several years later that I should go back and tell him that an ole country eye doctor said that I should be on medication since diabetes can affect my eyes and every organ in my body. On 07-30-1997 the medical doctor finally prescribed medication for diabetes. But the diabetes was not getting any better so I changed medical doctors on April 30, 2003 and the new doctor immediately increased my medication three fold. In July of 2003 he prescribed medication for hypertension even though HBP was on my medical record for several years. On November 8, 2003 I filed an original disability claim for service connection for type 2 diabetes due to herbicide (Agent Orang) exposure. I did not file for secondary disability due to hypertension. On March 26, 2004 I received a rating decision for approval of 20% for diabetes but a denial for hypertension. They had reviewed my entire medical record and made a decision without any evidence or filing that my hypertension was not related to my diabetes. Their decision states that "The evidence does not show that hypertension is related to service-connected condition of diabetes mellitus, Type 2, nor is there any evidence of this disability during military service. The available medical evidence only shows you with a history and treatment for hypertension". On July 14, 2015, I filed for hearing loss, coronary heart disease, glaucoma, cataracts and again for hypertension. On November 23, 2015, I received a letter with decision. They awarded me 10% disability for tinnitus and 60% for coronary artery disease effective as of July 14, 2015. They denied any disability for the other ailments. They said I had not reported any "new" and material evidence concerning hypertension that they had not previously considered. The new and material must raise a reasonable possibility that when considered with all the evidence or record (both new and old), that the outcome (conclusion) would change. The evidence can't simply be redundant (repetitive) or cumulative of that which we had when we previously decided your claim. My question is: What else can I provide? I have had a long history of HPB which the medical proves and they have previously acknowledge. I started taking medication for hypertension after having taken medication for diabetes for several years. I don't know anything else to provide. I have HPB currently being controlled by medication and it is a known medical fact that hypertension can be secondary to diabetes. Their denial for glaucoma and cataracts were almost identical. They said that the evidence does not show that glaucoma (also cataracts) is related to the service-connected condition of diabetes mellitus, Type 2, nor is there any evidence of this disability during military service. Your service treatment records do not contain complaints, treatment, or diagnosis for this condition. The evidence does not show an event, disease or injury in service. We did not find a link between your medical condition and military service. They have refused to consider these conditions as secondary to diabetes even though again it is a proven and acceptable medical fact that glaucoma and cataracts can be related to diabetes. Now to try and answer your questions: When you received your VA CSC rating of 70%, was there an "inferred IU Claim" mentioned in the Award Letter? Have you filed for IU since getting the CSC 70%. Are you currently Employable or earning in excess of $12,400 under 65, $11,400 over 65? Do you use a VSO-Rep? I don't know what an "Inferred IU Claim" is and I can not see it mentioned in the Award Letter. I have not filed for "IU" since getting the 70%, but I did file a NOD. I am not employed. I am 74 years of age and have been retired since 2005. I am using the county veterans affairs office who is a VSO representative registered with the VFW. The VA office out Nashville has an employee that comes to Knoxville once a month. I went and talked to him about my claim and he said it appears the local VSO filed it wrong. He said he would take it back to Nashville and let the "guys" upstairs review it and I should be hearing something soon. Nothing so far. He said I might have to go for another C&P. Looks like I will be pushing up daises before this is resolved! On the HBP it has been since 2004.

What is IMO/IME?

I filed for VA benefits secondary to diabetes related to Agent Orange exposure for glaucoma, cataracts and hypertension. I am receiving 70% for diabetes and stents in my heart. The VA has denied my filing for secondary aliments because they say I have no proof that they are caused by diabetes. In their words they are "at least as likely not caused" by diabetes. My question is how does one prove that they are at least as likely caused by diabetes since all medical evidence reports they can be caused by diabetes? I have my claim under NOD. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.