Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

VA Disability Claims Articles

Ask Your VA Claims Question | Current Forum Posts Search | Rules | View All Forums
VA Disability Articles | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users

ADAMS

Seaman
  • Posts

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ADAMS

  1. On 9/29/2020 at 11:09 AM, shrekthetank1 said:

    This is what won my sleep apnea.  Please feel free to use this in your fight against the VA.  Most would not need to be this long, but I would use what you feel is needed and fits with your claim.  

    Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
    Supplemental Claim is elected. If additional evidence or clarification is needed, please
    contact me by facsimile, telephone, or U.S. mail.
    The above veteran received a Rating Decision dated March 12, 2020 and wishes to
    appeal this decision regarding the following issues:
    1. Service connection for sleep apnea.
    The Veteran is entitled to service connection for sleep apnea. The Board remanded the
    veteran’s claim because the VA failed to provide a medical examination. The VA finally
    provided an examination on February 17, 2020. Counsel has not received a copy of the
    examination and therefore cannot fully assess its sufficiency. However, from the portions of the
    examiner’s opinion provided, it is inadequate for several reasons. First, the examiner determined
    that because the veteran was not diagnosed until 11 years after his service, it is less than likely
    that the veteran’s sleep apnea is related to his service. A lack of medical records is not negative

    evidence that disproves the veteran’s claim. Sleep apnea does not require immediate medical
    care. Moreover, sleep apnea in particular is a condition that is often undiagnosed, as noted by the
    attached article by the University of Washington. It is inappropriate to discredit the veteran’s
    claim merely because he does not have a treatment record for a historically underdiagnosed
    disorder that does not require immediate treatment.
    Furthermore, the examiner determined that the veteran’s sleep apnea was likely not
    caused by the veteran’s military service because “exposure to burn pits does not cause a physical
    obstruction in the airway, which is the cause of sleep apnea.” Some older research questioned
    whether burn pits could cause sleep apnea, however the most recent academic research from
    May 2020, which is attached, shows that sleep apnea is caused by exposure to burn pits. The
    basis of the examiner’s decision is based on a decisively faulty premise and is therefore
    inadequate.
    Moreover, the examiner entirely failed to consider secondary service-connection due to
    the veteran’s PTSD. PTSD is a well-established cause of sleep apnea, as noted in the attached
    articles. The examiner’s failure to consider secondary service connection due to the veteran’s
    PTSD, which is noted throughout his medical records, renders the examination inadequate. If the
    VA provides an examination, it must be an adequate one. The multiple failures committed by the
    examiner renders their opinion inadequate and the veteran must be provided a new examination.

    Please readjudicate the claim accordingly.
    Also attached are the following articles:
    1. Visesh Kapur et al, Medical Cost of Undiagnosed Sleep Apnea, Pulmonary and Critical
    Care Division, Department of Medicine, University of Washington.
    2. Chelsey Poisson et al, A Pilot Study of Airborne Hazards and Other Toxic Exposures in
    Iraq War Veterans, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
    published May 9, 2020.
    3. The Connection Between PTSD and Sleep Apnea, Sleep Foundation.
    4. Peter J. Colvonen et al, Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
    among OEF/OIF/OND Veterans, Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine.
    Additionally, based upon common errors committed by the VA, the Veteran argues and
    preserves the following:
    Examination inadequate. If the VA Secretary provides an examination, it must be an
    adequate one. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). VA regulation instructs
    adjudicators to return as inadequate an examination report that is not supported by sufficient
    findings or does not contain sufficient detail. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2; see also Bowling v. Principi, 15
    Vet. App. 1, 12 (2001); Vazquez-Flores v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 94, 97 (2010) (citing Daves v.
    Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 46, 51 (2007), for the proposition that “...when a medical examination
    report was susceptible to multiple fair but inconsistent meanings, the Board erred in failing to
    seek clarification”). “Most of the probative value of a medical opinion comes from its reasoning”
    and a medical opinion is not, “...entitled to any weight . . . if it contains only data and
    conclusions.” Nieves-Rodriquez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008).

    An inadequate medical examination frustrates judicial review because it does not
    adequately reveal the current state of the disability. Hicks v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 417, 422 (1995).
    The necessity of a thorough examination and a thorough explanation of the examined conditions
    is simple. The primary purpose for the examination is to require the Board to decide the claim
    based on sympathetic development and the resulting accurate view of the veteran’s current
    medical status. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 595 (1991).
    The Board “...must provide for the conduct of an adequate examination during the active stage
    of appellant’s (disorder), and must, on the basis of that examination and all evidence of record,
    ascertain the existence, extent, and significance under the rating schedule of any (symptom) due
    to (the disorder).” Ardison v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 405, 408 (1994).
    If the VA decides a case without an adequate and competent medical examination, it is,
    in effect, supplying its own medical opinion, which is remandable error. See Colvin v. Derwinski,
    1 Vet. App. 171, 175 (1990). An independent medical opinion must contain sufficient
    information so that VA is not exercising independent medical judgment. Stefl v. Nicholson, 21
    Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007); see also Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 301 (2008)
    (The Secretary, “...when he undertakes to provide a medical examination to obtain a medical
    opinion, must ensure that the examiner providing the report or opinion is fully cognizant of the
    claimant’s past medical history”); Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 270 - 71 (1998) (VA
    examination remanded for inadequacies of exam on remand).
    When the examiner states that a non-speculative decision cannot be reached, the Board
    must consider several factors in determining whether the opinion is adequate. First, the record
    must demonstrate that the examiner has weighed all procurable information. Next, the examiner
    must provide an explanation for his or her conclusion. The record must also demonstrate that an
    inability to provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation “’reflects the limitation of
    knowledge in the medical community at large’ and not a limitation—whether based on lack of
    expertise, insufficient information, or unprocured testing—of the individual examiner.” Sharp v.
    Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017).
    Veteran’s lay statements. The VA must adequately review veteran’s favorable lay
    statements concerning his medical status. His statements are competent proof. These statements
    of his current medical condition need not be supported by contemporaneous, corroborative
    medical records. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see Dalton v.
    Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 39 (2007) (where Court explained VA was in error when the sole
    premise for the examiner’s conclusion was the lack of notation or treatment of the claimed
    disability in service); see also Smith v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 137, 140 (1992) (noting that the
    purpose of section 1154(b) was “...to overcome the adverse effect of a lack of official record of
    incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury and treatment thereof” (citing H.R. Rep. No.
    1157, 77th Cong., 1st Sess. (1941), reprinted in 1941 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1035)).
    VA must address the credibility and probative value of veteran’s lay statements in its
    analysis of veteran’s case. VA must have a valid basis for finding veteran’s lay testimony
    incredible where VA concludes that veteran’s claimed injury is one of such severity, it would
    have been recorded in service had it actually happened during that time. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24

    Vet. App. 428, 433-34 (2011).
    The VA must consider lay statements where (1) the, “...layperson is competent to
    identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical
    diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a
    medical professional.” Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Credible
    lay evidence alone is competent to establish the existence of the claimed condition(s). Further, in
    some instances lay evidence by itself is sufficient to establish a medical nexus between veteran’s
    service and current disability, insomuch that no “medical evidence” is needed to substantiate the
    claim. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
    To decide the claim without an accurate record and review of veteran’s lay statements as
    to his actual physical condition is in contravention to law and effectively operates to allow the
    VA to substitute its own opinions for that of record. This is always harmful error. See Doran v.
    Brown, 6 Vet. App. 283, 287 (1994) (citing Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171, 175 (1990)).
    Discounted favorable evidence. VA has the obligation to weigh and consider all of the
    evidence. See Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Hogan v. Peake, 544 F.
    3d 1295, 1298 (Fed Cir. 2008) (A determination regarding service connection requires
    consideration of “...all pertinent medical and lay evidence...”) (quoting 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a)).
    The VA must do this whether it finds the evidence persuasive or not. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1
    Vet. App. 49, 56-57 (1990).
    If the VA is going to discount favorable evidence, it must explain why it did so, make its
    explanation understandable to laypersons and provide sufficient detail to facilitate court review.
    See Norris v. West, 11 Vet. App. 219, 224-25 (1998); Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 517, 527
    (1995). This is required as a matter of law. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (d); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.
    App. 49, 56-57 (1990); Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 39-40 (1994); Schafrath v.
    Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 592-93 (1991); Daves v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 46, 51 (2007)
    (citing Meyer v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 425, 233 (1996)).
    VA errs when considering the effects of medication on the appropriate rating for
    appellant’s service-connected condition when those effects are not explicitly contemplated by the
    rating criteria. Jones v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 56, 61 (2012). VA errs in taking those effects into
    account when evaluating veteran’s disability rather than limiting itself to the symptoms expressly
    contemplated by the appropriate rating code. Conditions caused by the adverse side effects of
    medications used to treat a service-connected condition should be service-connected on a
    secondary basis. Wanner v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 4 (2003), rev’d on other grounds, 370 F.3d
    1124 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
    Where a medical record is incomplete, the VA should refer the examination report back
    to the examiner for clarification. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2. This is also the case for private medical
    examination reports. Savage v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 259 (2011) (In Savage, the Court
    explicitly limited VA’s duty to seek clarification of private medical reports to situations where
    “...the missing information is relevant, factual, and objective–that is, not a matter of opinion...”
    24 Vet. App. at 270. Specifically, the Court held that when a private medical report is the only

    evidence on a material issue, and material medical evidence can no longer be obtained as to that
    issue, yet clarification of a relevant, objective fact would render the private medical report
    competent for the assignment of weight, the Secretary must attempt to obtain such clarification.
    Id. at 267.
    Sympathetic development. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) mandates the “...VA to assist a
    claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim...” and obligates the VA “...to render a
    decision which grants every benefit that can be supported in law...” See Cook v. Principi, 318
    F.3d 1334, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc) (noting 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) is the regulation setting
    forth the duty to assist codified in 38 U.S.C. § 5103A)); see also Roberson v. Principi, 251 F.3d
    1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (declaring Congress has mandated “...that the VA is to fully and
    sympathetically develop the veteran’s claim to its optimum before deciding on the merits.”).
    (Quotation omitted).
    Included in this obligation is the obligation to weigh and consider all of the evidence. See
    Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Hogan v. Peake, 544 F. 3d 1295, 1298
    (Fed Cir. 2008) (A determination regarding service connection requires consideration of “...all
    pertinent medical and lay evidence...”) (quoting 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a)). This pertains to all
    claims. Ingram v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 232, 238 (2007); see also Szemraj v. Principi, 357
    F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The VA must consider all evidence whether it finds it persuasive or
    not. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 56-57 (1990). This obviously includes
    conscientious, independent consideration of veteran’s lay statements. See Buchanan v.
    Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
    The Court in Ingram v. Nicholson stated that although there is no legal “...definition of
    ‘sympathetic reading’, it is clear from the purpose of the doctrine that it includes a duty to apply
    some level of expertise in reading documents to recognize the existence of possible claims that
    an unsophisticated pro se claimant would not be expected to be able to articulate clearly.”
    Ingram, 21 Vet. App at 255; see also Robinson v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 545, 553 (2008)
    (Board must consider all theories of entitlement that were reasonably raised by either the veteran
    or by the evidence in the record).
    Despite such obligation, the VA has failed to develop and adjudicate its decisions with an
    eye to allowing the veteran the maximum benefit to which he is entitled, which is a failure in its
    duty to assist and outcome determinative error. See Roberson v. Principi, 251 F.3d 1378, 1385
    (Fed. Cir. 2001); Schroeder v. West, 212 F.3d 1265, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also Akles v.
    Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 118, 121 (1991).
    Benefit of the doubt and burden of proof. Veteran argues he is being held to a burden
    of proof beyond that set by law. The VA holds veteran to an unfair burden. Federal statute
    clearly states, “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. § 5107(b). “...the preponderance of the evidence must
    be against the claim for benefits to be denied.” Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-55
    (1990). VA applied the improper standard of proof in this case.

    Reasons and bases. VA is required to consider and “...discuss in its decision, all
    ‘potentially applicable’ provisions of law and regulation.” Majeed v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App.
    525, 529 (2006) (citing Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 593 (1991)); 38 U.S.C. §
    7104(a). The VA must account for all of the evidence whether it finds it persuasive or
    unpersuasive, and provide reasons and bases for rejecting evidence. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1
    Vet. App. 49, 56-57 (1990). It must weigh the credibility and probative value of all evidence. See
    Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
    If VA is going to discount evidence and refuse to provide veteran a medical examination,
    VA must explain why it did so. These reasons must be sufficient to allow veteran the opportunity
    to understand why it did so. See Norris v. West, 11 Vet. App. 219, 224-25 (1998); Allday v.
    Brown, 7 Vet. App. 517, 527 (1995). This is required as a matter of law. See 38 U.S.C. §
    7104(d); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 56-57 (1990); Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App.
    36, 39-40 (1994). This is not only for the benefit of the veteran, but also the federal appellate
    court which will ultimately review the claim and its adjudication. See Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet.
    App. 517, 527 (1995).
    Missing medical records. “Since the VA has been unable to obtain the veteran’s service
    medical records, it has a heightened duty to explain its findings and conclusions.” See Lee v.
    Nicholson, 2006 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 1393. More specifically, in Washington v.
    Nicholson, the Court held that when a veteran’s records are presumed lost or destroyed, the
    Board is “...under a heightened duty to consider and discuss the evidence of record and supply
    well-reasoned bases for its decision as a consequence of the appellant’s missing SMRs.” 19 Vet.
    App. 362, 371 (2005). The Court held the Secretary breached the duty to assist in failing to
    “explore alternatives” to missing service records and “...VA should make reasonable efforts to
    obtain such reports, statements, or other records that might provide corroboration for the
    appellant’s assertion...” of an in-service injury, disease, or event. Id.
    The Secretary’s duty to assist includes a duty to obtain any “...relevant records held by
    any Federal department or agency that the claimant adequately identifies and authorizes the
    Secretary to obtain.” §38 U.S.C. § 5103A(c)(1)(C); §38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2); Loving v.
    Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 96, 102 (2005). Efforts to obtain records in the custody of a Federal
    department or agency must continue unless “...VA concludes that the records sought do not exist
    or that further efforts to obtain those records would be futile.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2).
    “If VA . . . after continued efforts to obtain Federal records concludes that it is reasonably
    certain they do not exist or further efforts to obtain them would be futile, VA will provide the
    claimant with oral or written notice of that fact.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e)(1). The notice must (1)
    identify the records VA was unable to obtain; (2) explain what efforts the VA took to obtain the
    records; (3) describe any further action VA will take regarding the claim; and (4) notify the
    claimant that he is ultimately responsible for providing the evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e)(1)(i)-
    (iv).
    Negative evidence and mischaracterization of claims. The Board may not consider the
    absence of a medical notation to be negative evidence when there is no reason a medical
    examiner would have commented on a particular matter. Buczynski v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App.

    221, 224 (2011). See Douglas v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 19, 25–26 (2009) (“...the duty to gather
    evidence sufficient to render a decision is not a license to continue gathering evidence in the
    hopes of finding evidence against the claim”).
    The Board may not mischaracterize veteran’s claims. Mischaracterization of claims may
    lead to considering issues outside of “...the scope of the appeal, applying the wrong law, and
    engaging in the wrong analysis.” See Murphy v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 510, 513 (2014) (the
    Murphy Court recognized mischaracterization of claims as the catalyst to improper reduction of
    claims, which the Court indicated has a “...’chilling effect’ in the administrative appeals
    process...”).
    Medical treatises. A medical article or treatise “...can provide important support when
    combined with an opinion of a medical professional” if the medical article or treatise evidences
    “...generic relationships with a degree of certainty such that, under the facts of a specific case,
    there is at least ‘plausible causality’ based upon objective facts rather than on an unsubstantiated
    lay medical opinion.” Sacks v. West, 11 Vet. App. 314, 317 (1998); see also Wallin v. West, 11
    Vet. App. 509 (1998).
    “A veteran with a competent medical diagnosis of a current disorder may invoke an
    accepted medical treatise in order to establish the required nexus; in an appropriate case it should
    not be necessary to obtain the services of medical personnel to show how the treatise applies to
    his case.” Hensley v. West, 212 F.3d 1255, 1265 (2000). “An ‘evaluation’ of treatise evidence
    should be made in the first instance by the BVA.” Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122, 131
    (2000). If the Board fails to consider medical-treatise evidence by the veteran, the Court will
    remand the case to “...the Board to evaluate “that evidence” to see if it supports a nexus.” Id.
    Due process. Veteran also contends the Regional Office’s (RO) failures as expressly
    asserted in this Notice of Disagreement rise to the level of the Secretary’s denial of Veteran’s
    procedural due process protections, guaranteed to U.S. military veterans by the Fifth
    Amendment, U.S. Constitution. See Cushman v Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

    This is Awesome News, I have been fighting the VA for years on my sleep apnea, Currently rated at 30% PTSD, I have had severe sleep apnea well before I got out, did not get diagnosed until 3 years later, have really good buddy statements from one I served with, my x-wife whos was with me 6 years while serving and current wife, still screwing me around , contracted Physician assistant (QTC) stated I wasn't diagnosed until years later and went against my claim, I have an appeal in to the board that is hopefully coming up soon. Thanks For the Info. Hopefully I can win, tired of fighting with these people.

     

  2. 1 hour ago, ADAMS said:

    I have been denied for sleep apnea, I Have statements form x-spouse and spouse and Buddy's I served with that they witnessed my issues, I was on recruiting duty and had no MTF within 70 miles to get treated, as we all know how stubborn us veterans can be going to the doctor, however I did go to my private physician and complained of not sleeping well and it was documented that i was waking up frequently and gasping for air, he recommended me having a sleep study conducted which I did not until 3 years later and i was diagnosed with severe obstructive sleep apnea and was issued a cpap, I use it faithfully and have for years, I went to the VA in 2019 to have a sleep test done because My cpap was breaking down and it was discovered still I have severe sleep apnea once again and was issued a new machine. When i went to my C&P exam the doctor favored me as at least likely caused by military service then the VA turned around and sent it to another doctor for a opinion because first doctor didn't provide a rationale, the second doctor turned it now because i wasn't diagnosed until 2013, I now have a BVA appeal awaiting on a hearing. Has anyone experienced this? It is so hard to get a private physician and even my private sleep doctor to write an opinion for my sleep apnea, they all seem to be scared of lawsuits.  Any recommendations?? Thanks

    Has anyone used Valor for Vet for medical opinions / Nexus

  3. 51 minutes ago, broncovet said:

    I will go back to basics.  

    You need a current diagnosis (I will assume they didnt give you a cpap with no diagnosis of OSA)

    In service event or aggravation.

    Nexus , or link between "in service event" and your current diagnosis.  These are Caluza elements, and you did not mention your "in service event".  

    Were you punched in the face?  Broken Nose?  PTSD?  These are some things that may cause OSA.  You need to be able to point to that event (unless you argue aggravation).  

    Now, its true that there is a presumptive "but only" for the first year out of service.  

    In other words, you had a physical and "did not" have sleep apnea prior to service, then you have it on exit from service, that is the presumptive.  

    However, its possible you got punched in the face "after" service, and that caused OSA.  

    I am currently rated for Hypertension/PTSD and Tinnitus, 

  4. I have been denied for sleep apnea, I Have statements form x-spouse and spouse and Buddy's I served with that they witnessed my issues, I was on recruiting duty and had no MTF within 70 miles to get treated, as we all know how stubborn us veterans can be going to the doctor, however I did go to my private physician and complained of not sleeping well and it was documented that i was waking up frequently and gasping for air, he recommended me having a sleep study conducted which I did not until 3 years later and i was diagnosed with severe obstructive sleep apnea and was issued a cpap, I use it faithfully and have for years, I went to the VA in 2019 to have a sleep test done because My cpap was breaking down and it was discovered still I have severe sleep apnea once again and was issued a new machine. When i went to my C&P exam the doctor favored me as at least likely caused by military service then the VA turned around and sent it to another doctor for a opinion because first doctor didn't provide a rationale, the second doctor turned it now because i wasn't diagnosed until 2013, I now have a BVA appeal awaiting on a hearing. Has anyone experienced this? It is so hard to get a private physician and even my private sleep doctor to write an opinion for my sleep apnea, they all seem to be scared of lawsuits.  Any recommendations?? Thanks

  5. Yes I do have treatment after service the only problem is i let it go for a couple of years after i retired until I went to my orthopedic surgeon. I do have medical documentation from my orthopedic surgeon stating I had severe to moderate osteoarthritis in both knees, I do have documentation of my personal doctor when i begin having problems 2 years before I retired and there is x-rays results showing ostephytes/bone spurs.My personal doctor treated me with medication for a while until I couldn't take the pain anymore.

  6. I have a C&P exam coming up for my knees, While I was in service I served aboard 2 different ships, I hear that Ship board ladders are bad on your knees, I didn't start having a problem with my knees until we had our PRT test, during this time I was on recruiting duty, while I was running i slipped into a hole and fell, It was documented and I went to my private physician, he documented that there was swelling and the xray results showed Ostephytes on my left knee, it was sore for weeks, from there I feel like i over compensated for my right knee, I had knee replacement on my right knee last year, 9 years after I retired. I was diagnosed 6 years later after retiring that I had moderate to severe osteoarthritis in both knees. Any one experienced claims for this disease. just wondering and am nervous about my C&P exam that the examiner wont see it my way. Thanks

     

  7. 19 minutes ago, Berta said:

    "IHD is rated under Diagnostic Code 7005. The rating criteria are as follows. A 10 percent rating is warranted for a workload of greater than 7 metabolic equivalents (METs) but not greater than 10 METs resulting in dyspnea, fatigue, angina, dizziness, or syncope; or continuous medication required. A 30 percent rating is warranted if a workload between 5 and 7 METs results in dyspnea, fatigue, angina, dizziness, or syncope; or if there is evidence of cardiac hypertrophy or dilatation. A 60 percent rating is warranted if there had been more than one episode of acute congestive heart failure (CHF) in the past year; or if a workload between 3 and 5 METs results in dyspnea, fatigue, angina, dizziness, or syncope; or if there is left ventricular dysfunction with an ejection fraction of 30-50 percent. A 100 percent rating is warranted if there is chronic CHF; or if a workload of 3 METs or less results in dyspnea, fatigue, angina, dizziness, or syncope; or if there is left ventricular dysfunction with an ejection fraction of less than 30 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, Diagnostic Code 7005 (2017)."

    https://www.va.gov/vetapp19/files6/19144427.txt

    You claimed the IHD as secondary to your HBP_ do you have a SC rating now for the HBP?

    The ECHO states Risk Factors as Hyperlipidemia- are you a diabetic?

    Are you an incountry Vietnam veteran or did you serve anywhere else, (even in USA) where you might have been exposed to AO?

     

    I am SC for Hypertension, I dont have diabetes I have high cholesterol. Gulf war VET.

  8. So I recently was denied for Macular degeneration of the left eye, I was diagnosed with this condition within one year of discharge . I attended a C&P exam February of 2019, the examiner had noted the date of onset was 2010, and in another box she had date of diagnosis of 2012, this date would have put me over the 1 year period of discharge, seems like to me 2012 is a mistake and should have been 2011 according to my doctors letter. Any Thoughts????? I have attached the C&P and Doctors letters. Thanks 

    doc00489220190917155152.pdf

  9. On 9/11/2019 at 10:22 AM, johnsctt78 said:

    Hello

    how can i obtain a copy of my C and P from last year,the c and P was favorable to my case and im looking to have outside treatment done.I had the C and P done at LHI near my hometown,I called the regional office of the va in NYC and they pointed me to st louis mo etc,Is it possible to find a local VSO who could in turn look it up for me at there office?Or does LHI have the ability to give me a copy if i request it from them?,im trying to get a copy in the shortest time possible without waiting 4-5 months as stated by my local RO

    The easiest way I have found is to submit a FOIA request is you can do so on a form 21-4138 and make sure your information is filled out correctly, write in the statement area exactly what you are wanting. fax the form to 844-531-7818 or mail to Department of veterans affairs claim intake center. PO BOX 5235 Janesville,WI 53547-5235 should only take a couple of weeks.

  10. On 9/9/2019 at 9:57 PM, Hamslice said:

    This is what I know,

    When a claim is referred for more development, it goes back on the pile (que) and then the next available RO looks at it.  NOT the same RO that looked at it originally.  It absolutely makes no sense, but that is the way it is.

    I had a claim, that was referred by a RO in one state.  Then I had another C&P to address the referral.  Then it was referred again by a RO in another state.  Then I had an addition C&P to address that referral.  Then it was picked up by a RO in an entirely different state from the first two.

    So, it took one examiner, three exams and three RO's to deny me, after the examiner opined least as likely 50% greater.  I went a different direction and got it rated.  Sometimes you have to work the system, cause the system ain't working for you.

    Just sayin,

    Hamslice

     

    May I ask what direction you went??

  11. 44 minutes ago, GeekySquid said:

    assuming what you just posted is accurate that is a Bozo No-No,

    The question is do you have documentary proof of what you just wrote?

    I mean official, in the record documents?

    3 weeks is a short time to get those docs which is why i ask.

    I just Requested copies of all C&P exams through the FOIA, hopefully they send me what I saw, I was able to see this through a VSO who has access to VA VBMS which shows cleary the VA's error on sending my documentation to another Doctor..

  12. So I had recently received a C&P For Sleep apnea, Doctor favored me in other words, was at least likely as not 50% greater probability that the disability was incurred during service,. now 3 weeks later it was sent back out for a correction on something the doctor didn't fill out correctly, but magically it wasn't sent to the doctor that initially completed my exam it was sent to someone 5 states away whom never met me or knows nothing about me, anyways she changed the exam to a negative meaning she said was less likely than not, i find this as being a integrity issue with the VA, when it should have gone back to the same examiner. Any Comments???? Claim denied 3 days later.   SHADY

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use