Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts
Read Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules
68mustang
-
Posts
405 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
VA Disability and Benefits Information
VA Benefits News
Store
Posts posted by 68mustang
-
-
How do we know this decision will become common practice thoughout the VA? It is going to create chaos. If they do the denial thing it will make writing NOD's difficult because you won't know why your claims were denied. If you have five claims and one is denied you have to assume the others were denied, but you have no idea why? How can you write a decent NOD. If you do write a generic NOD will you get back a SOC that is specific to all the denied claims? I get a feeling the denied claims will be lost in space. I know why they did this move because the VA pushed them to do it to cut down on the paperwork to write denials for veterans filing large numbers of claims. I think this is something that younger vets are doing now since they are better prepared than us old guys. I think in reality it is unworkable, and does not allow due process.
Thanks to all of you for your responses. I went to the DAV this morning for help with denied claim for hearing loss. Last night through IRIS I sent a request for my c-file and a copy of the 2007 "phantom" denial letter for hearing loss. I don't believe that the denial letter ever existed. DAV rep. told me that when I receive the documents to go back and we'll see what we need to do. I feel that it we be an uphill battle, but I am up for it. I am not going to let the VA get away with an inferred hearing loss claim if that is what happened. Plus I will be sending a letter to my Congressman about the VA'S "Deemed Denied" ruling from 2006. I read the the info on the ruling and all I saw was that if multiple claims were made and if one was denied all others would be deemed denied. In my case I only filed for tinnitus and not for hearing loss. The tinnitus claim was approved and there is no paperwork denying a hearing loss calim. Again thanks.
68mustang
-
Could it be that since your Dr said you suffered from hearing loss that is SCd that then the RO "assumed" (wrongly) that you were also filing a claim for that hearing loss....but didn't find either enough evidence or the right paperwork and denied it??
idk...just guessing here
Purple and Larry J thanks for your input. I don't know how an RO could give a denial when there is no claim for hearing loss. I agree that the RO could have made a mistake and wrongly assumed that a claim for hearing loss was made using the doctor's report. I'll also ask to see my c-file and call the 1-800 number for a copy of the alleged claim. Thanks.
-
Thanks for the info provided by all of you.
Larry J to answer your questions below. The denial that I received this past month mentions that I had previously file for hearing loss in 2007 . I never filed for hearing loss at that time. In 2007 I for filed tinnitus and not for hearing loss. The tinnitus claim was awarded and the award letter did not make any mention of a denial for hearing loss. If there had been documentation of a denial for hearing loss I would have quickly file an NOD. I believe the VA has made a mistake in saying that a non existent hearing loss claim from 2007 precludes me from using the doctor's report that was used for tinnitus in 2007. The doctor's report documents hearing loss due to exposure to acoustic trauma in military jobs and I believe that I should be able to use it since it has not been used to support a hearing loss. Thanks.
"Did your denial for "hearing loss" state that this doctor's report was used to come to the conclusion of the denial?
Is this doctor's report mentioned anywhere in the SOC?
If not, then I'd file an NOD for "hearing loss" and use this doctor's report as the basis of "new and material" (meaning it is new evidence that the VA had not considered in the original claim and that it was, indeed, material evidence that, if it had been considered, would have materially effected the decision".
-
Recently I put in a claim for hearing loss and vertigo. The VA denied the hearing loss, but has let the vertigo claim go forward. The reason the VA stated for denying the hearing loss claim was that last year I had put in a claim for hearing loss, which was denied and that I did not appeal the decision within the one year time limit. I did file a claim for tinnitus, and did not file a hearing loss claim. The tinnitus claim was approved and I received a 10% rating. The award letter states that my tinnitus claim was approved and nowhere in the letter does it state that a hearing loss claim was denied. The VA also states that in order for the hearing loss claim to continue, that I need to provide new evidence which has not been previously used.
The doctor's report that I sent in last year for the tinnitus claim stated the I had tinnitus and hearing loss due to acoustic trauma while in the military.
The doctor's report was used on the tinnitus claim, should that report be allowed to support my hearing loss claim since I had not previously file for hearing loss claim in last years original tinnitus claim?
Any input that you all might have would be appreciated. Thanks.
68mustang
-
Rebate Checks will be deposit to bank accounts starting this Monday and paper checks will go out on the 9th of May.
The following web site has the schedule for the rebate checks. http://community.stretcher.com/forums/t/4476.aspx 68mustang
-
I found this article about noise-induced vestibular dysfunction and the possible association with noise exposure. Hope this helps those with vertigo and tinnitus. 68mustang http://www.noiseandhealth.org/article.asp?...;aulast=Nageris
-
Mustang- I just edited the reply and hope you read the edited copy-
I got it backwards-
I meant to say Meniere's as secondary to tinnitus-
and with a doc's statement of this -that would get it SCed for you.
Thanks again for your help. 68mustang
-
Can you post a link or further information about this vet that had mn sc'd as secondary to tinnitus, please. I'm not sure how that is possible, because tinnitus is a symptom of mn, therefore, medically, mn could not be secondary to tinnitus. But the VA has definately done stranger things. I would really like to see the VA's logic on this, though, because I have it also.
This is what I was talking about. It was posted on hadit.com forum. http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16521 I also found the following site. http://www.va.gov/vetapp03/Files/0309432.txt Plus Berta has provided helpful info. 68mustang
-
The VA will service connection Meniere's directly or on a secondary basis.
The veteran- claiming this condition to any SC disability-must have medical evidence to support the connection.
This 2008 BVA decision might help you- BTW all- the BVA has started to post 2008 decisions.
http://www.va.gov/vetapp08/files1/0800654.txt
In part:
"FINDING OF FACT
The veteran's Meniere's disease is manifested by dizziness
and bilateral tinnitus; it is not manifested by cerebellar
gait or compensable hearing impairment.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for an initial combined evaluation in excess of
40 percent for Meniere's disease have not been met. 38
U.S.C.A. §§ 1151, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 4.87,
Diagnostic Codes 6100, 6204, 6205, 6260 (2007)."
The decision is lengthy but worthy reading in total:
"The veteran's Meniere's disease was initially rated under
Diagnostic Code 6205. Under this code, a 30 percent rating
is assigned for Meniere's syndrome with hearing impairment
with vertigo less than once a month, with or without
tinnitus. A 60 percent evaluation is in order when there is
hearing impairment with attacks of vertigo and cerebellar
gait occurring from one to four times a month, with or
without tinnitus. A 100 percent rating is warranted when
there is hearing impairment with attacks of vertigo and
cerebellar gait occurring more than once weekly, with or
without tinnitus. It is noted that Meniere's syndrome may be
rated either under these criteria or by separately evaluating
vertigo (as a peripheral vestibular disorder), hearing
impairment, and tinnitus, whichever method results in a
higher overall evaluation. An evaluation for hearing
impairment, tinnitus, or vertigo may not be combined with an
evaluation under Diagnostic Code 6205."
The veteran appears to have raiesed both Menieres and Tinnitus in his original claim and was awarded 40%- 30% for the Menieres and then 10% separate award for tinnitus which could not be combined as the decision states.
The veteran lost a claim for higher rating as explained in the decision.
You should claim the tinnitus as due to or secondary to the SC Meniere's -without VA combining the award for tinnitus-for the 10% additional-
this will take a medical statement of the connection to the SC disability-
and if you fall into a higher Meniere's rating- as stated in this decision-ask them for more for the Meniere's too.
If you fall into the 100% criteria for Meniere's and are not presently working- by all means apply for TDIU.
Thanks Berta. You are always there with the help. 68mustang
-
Berta I hope that you may provide an answer. I am presently rated 10% for tinnitus. I have some dizziness, which causes me to lose my balance. I also have feelings of fullness in my ears. I am now thinking of filing a claim for Meniere's secondary to tinnitus. I noticed that another vet's claim for Meniere's secondary to tinnitus was approved and rated at 30%. The reason for the approval was that the Meniere's was likely as not caused by the veteran's military service or SC tinnitus. I am glad that the vet got his claimed approved. I was under the impression that Meniere's was not secondary to tinnitus, however with this new information I hope to file a new claim for Meniere's. Can you provide input on what to state in my new claim? Thanks in advance for your help. 68mustang
-
A good one !!!!- I just hope they rate this properly.
Berta What could the rating be if rated properly? Thanks 68mustang
-
First off I want to thank a lot of you for your help you have all been kind enough to offer. I would like to know who here has wrote their Representatives, Senators, and Congressman and had any positive result? I have done this and besides adding time to my claim what other effect should I expect? I had a few responses but nothing solid other than checking into my claim.... Thanks.....Rich
I contacted my congressman's office several times here in San Antonio and in Washington about various VA related issues. Each time my calls were not returned within a reasonable time and I would have to call them again. Plus letters and e-mails to the congressman's office were only acknowledged after having to follow up and contacting the office. Several times I hand carried documents to the office and had them date stamp, but they would end up getting lost. One time I made an appointment to speak to the staff member who handled VA related issues. I showed up before the appointed time and when the staff member called me in he could not find my file. This congressman was not re-elected. After several years he ran for election and elected again. He is in office again and things have not changed. Again e-mails and letters go unanswered and are not acknowledged. Telephone messages are also not returned. I got more accomplished on my own and with the help of DAV. 68mustang
-
Berta you may find this web site interesting. It has to do with adenovirus vaccines that were administered to service members who went to boot camp at Great Lakes and other military bases. My medical records from 1967 Navy boot camp show that I volunteered for the vaccine. I never volunteered for the vaccine and I am sure many others were also administered the vaccines without their knowledge. It is interesting that some of the side effects of those vaccines were never revealed to the test subjects. There may be many vaccine test subjects who have come down with some of the side effects. And are not aware that their illness is associated with the vaccine tests. Vets need to check their medical records to see if they were also administered the vaccine without their knowledge like I was. 68mustang http://books.google.com/books?id=Irw82Iv5n...9HDAU&hl=en
-
fwd from: Colonel Dan
DOD and VA Need to Improve Efforts to Identify and Notify Individuals Potentially Exposed during Chemical and Biological Tests
http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-08-366 read abstract or full report at web siteSince 2003, DOD has stopped actively searching for individuals who were potentially exposed to chemical or biological substances during Project 112 tests, but did not provide a sound and documented basis for that decision. In 2003, DOD reported it had identified 5,842 servicemembers and estimated 350 civilians as having been potentially exposed during Project 112, and indicated that DOD would cease actively searching for additional individuals. However, in 2004, GAO reported that DOD did not exhaust all possible sources of information and recommended that DOD determine the feasibility of identifying additional individuals. In response to GAO's recommendation, DOD determined continuing an active search for individuals had reached the point of diminishing returns, and reaffirmed its decision to cease active searches. This decision was not supported by an objective analysis of the potential costs and benefits of continuing the effort, nor could DOD provide any documented criteria from which it made its determination. Since June 2003, however, non-DOD sources—including the Institute of Medicine—have identified approximately 600 additional names of individuals who were potentially exposed during Project 112. Until DOD provides a more objective analysis of the costs and benefits of actively searching for Project 112 participants, DOD's efforts may continue to be questioned.
DOD has taken action to identify individuals who were potentially exposed during tests outside of Project 112, but GAO identified four shortcomings in DOD's current effort. First, DOD's effort lacks clear and consistent objectives, scope of work, and information needs that would set the parameters for its effort. Second, DOD has not provided adequate oversight to guide this effort. Third, DOD has not fully leveraged information obtained from previous research efforts that identified exposed individuals. Fourth, DOD's effort lacks transparency since it has not kept Congress and veterans service organizations fully informed of the progress and results of its effort. Until DOD addresses these limitations, Congress, veterans, and the American public cannot be assured that DOD's current effort is reasonable and effective.
DOD and VA have had limited success in notifying individuals potentially exposed during tests both within and outside Project 112. DOD has a process to share the names of identified servicemembers with VA; however, DOD has delayed regular updates to VA because of a number of factors, such as competing priorities. Furthermore, although VA has a process for notifying potentially exposed veterans, it was not using certain available resources to obtain contact information to notify veterans or to help determine whether they were deceased. Moreover, DOD had not taken any action to notify identified civilians, focusing instead on veterans since the primary impetus for the research has been requests from VA. DOD has refrained from taking action on notifying civilians in part because it lacks specific guidance that defines the requirements to notify civilians. Until these issues are addressed, some identified veterans and civilians will remain unaware of their potential exposure
********* Page 30
For example, some records have been lost or destroyed, and existing documentation contains limited information and often does not identify names of participants, while others were not turned in by the scientists who were conducting the research. When the records can be found, they do not necessarily identify the participants, but may instead refer to control numbers that were issued to the participants, which cannot be cross-referenced to other documents for identification. For those records that do include identification of participants, the information may contain only the participants' initials, nicknames, or only first or last names. Also, since a number of these records do not include the participant's military service number or social security number, it is difficult to determine the exact identity of these individuals. Further, the contact information that VA is able to obtain may not be accurate. For example, more than 860 notification letters have been returned as undeliverable to VA.
However, VA is not using other available resources to obtain contact information to notify veterans. For example, while VA told us that it was using a company that is able to provide current contact information as a source, it had not coordinated with the Social Security Administration to obtain contact information for veterans receiving social security benefits or to identify deceased veterans using the agency's death index and had not regularly used the Internal Revenue Service's information. VA officials acknowledged that they had not directly used the death index and that a memorandum of understanding with the Social Security Administration might facilitate a new way to accomplish this. However, they noted the credit bureau receives weekly updates from the Social Security Administration's death index. VA officials also acknowledged that it planned to make more frequent use of IRS databases. Until VA implements a more effective process to obtain contact information for veterans, some veterans will remain unaware of their potential exposure or the availability of health exams and the potential for benefits directly related to an exposure.
__._,_.___ "Keep on, Keepin' on"
Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL "Colonel Dan"
I see no mention about asbestos exposure. The VA and Navy have not made any effort to warn veterans about possible asbestos exposure during their enlistments. Both the VA and Navy have forgotten about those veterans. 68mustang
-
along with my fight for sleep apnea I have a claim in for asbestos/respiratory condition. I did all that crap mentioned in the letter, I guess thats another piece of evidence for me to submit, along with abnormal b reader x rays in my SMR. I have some kind of obstructive lung disorder, I've seen it written in a report from a PFT.
Ya know thats one of the things that pisses me off so bad is this kind of crap (read on Below) and then the VA has the gonads to turn me down...............
All the toxic exposure I've been subjected to and no personal protective equipment back then. One of my first jobs in the navy (1976)was running a deck crawler on a aircraft carrier, USS Forestal, then on a tiger team on USS Morton DD 948 ripping out engineering space lagging and of course in that old piece of Iron which was commisioned in 1959 you know that lagging had asbestos in it.
Its funny that the reports I have read in my SMR indicate that pneumoconiosis is a possibility and not asbestos which is exactly what I think I read below? Any way I have a VCAA form to return on that claim and now I will also have more evidence to send.
Thank you for posting this! I tried b4 to get something started, some kind of resource for us vets with chemical exposures, when I think of the fumes I have inhaled, the PD680 that I had my arms submerged up to my elbows in it. Red Lead Paint, zinc chromate paint, 117 blue primer paint, green epoxy paint, non skid, hydraulic fluid by the drums.
Betrayed I also sent a letter to the VA, which was sent via my congressman's office, to see if a register similar to the Agent Orange register could be created for veterans exposed to asbestos or chemicals. I also sent a copy to the Navy Department and both stated that a register was not needed. Both stated that if veterans had any illnesses all they had to do was file a claim with the VA. So if a veteran files a claim for any illness that may have been caused by asbestos exposure or other chemicals the Va will usually turn down the claim. In some VA claims that have been turned down the VA has said that the veteran did not complain or have any illnesses at time of exposure. Studies have shown that it may take years or decades before any illnesses associated with asbestos or chemical exposure will become apparent. The VA knows this and continues to turn down veterans' claims. 68mustang
-
They have given me copd diagnosis right now since december, put me on spiriva,singulair,flonase,claritin and emergency inhaler of Proventil. Was a deck ape for twenty years on six different ships. Did a lot of deck grinding on non-skid, and alot of extra duty in the fireroom in my early years...lol. BT's had me inside the boiler scrubbing the tubes...lol. Alot of spray painting berthing spaces,engine rooms, firerooms you name it I sprayed it.
Boats
Boats if you cleaned the outside of boiler's tubes you were probably exposed to fuel oil residue. If you cleaned the inside of the tubes you were probably exposed to rust dust. Being a BT was one of the worst jobs in the Navy. I did that job for almost 2 years. My first day in the boileroom I made my mind up to transfer to another job that I was qualify to do. 68mustang
-
http://www1.va.gov/vasafety/docs/IL_10-99-004.htm
IL 10-99-004
In Reply Refer To: 13
March 5, 1999
UNDER SECRETARY FOR HEALTH'S INFORMATION LETTER
RESPIRATORY DISEASES IN FORMER NAVY DECK GRINDERS
1. This letter calls attention to a concern that some veterans, who served as deck grinders on aircraft carriers in the Navy during the 1970s through the 1990s, may have unrecognized, misdiagnosed occupational lung disease. Reevaluation of a Navy veteran who had been involved in grinding antiskid materials on aircraft carrier decks resulted in a change of diagnosis from sarcoidosis to pneumoconiosis. This case led to a study by staff of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) which found an increased risk for diagnosis of sarcoidosis, especially for African-Americans, associated with service on aircraft carriers. Conversely, another paper reported a decreased risk for a diagnosis of sarcoidoisis in Navy veterans who had served only on "clean ships."
2. Navy veterans who are concerned about possible misdiagnosis of pneumoconiosis as pulmonary sarcoidosis or who have other pulmonary problems possibly related to hazardous exposures in service are being invited to enroll to receive Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care. It is recommended that VA facilities provide the following services to veterans who may have occupational lung disease:
a. Performance of a Detailed Occupational History. This should include a list of all occupations during Navy service and the duration of each. Any shipboard service and type of ship, such as aircraft carrier, should be identified. Any potentially hazardous exposures should be described. Periods of service performing deck grinding should be specifically noted. All other occupations prior to and after service with the duration of each also should be listed.
b. Performance of a Detailed Medical History
(1) This should include special attention to respiratory symptoms, diagnosis of respiratory diseases and/or sarcoidosis, and treatment for respiratory conditions during the following 4 time periods:
(a) Before service,
(B) In service prior to the start of any deck grinding or other potentially hazardous exposure,
© In service following the start of any deck grinding or other potentially hazardous exposure, and
(d) After service.
(2) Attention also should be given to smoking, current respiratory symptoms (e.g., cough, sputum, hemoptypsis, wheezing, dyspnea on exertion, fever, night sweats, weight gain or loss, anorexia, asthmatic attacks), current treatment including medications, need for supplemental oxygen and indication, periods of incapacitation, pulmonary malignancy, and review of previous chest X-rays, biopsy findings and special studies such as Computerized Tomography (CT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI).
c. Performance of a Detailed Physical Examination. Special attention should be given to findings of cor pulmonale, right ventricular hypertrophy, pulmonary hypertension, congestive heart failure, respiratory failure, and pulmonary and/or extrapulmonary sarcoidosis.
d. Performance of Diagnostic and Clinical Tests. Tests could include pulmonary function tests before and after bronchodilation (unless performed within 6 months previously), chest X-ray (unless performed within 1 year previously) (NOTE: Chest X-rays may be sent to be re-read by a certified B-reader, if desired; if a B-reader is not available locally, you may contact the VA Office of Public Health and Environmental Hazards for assistance in identifying one), baseline screening tests (e.g., complete blood count, blood chemistries including calcium) and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) levels. Subspecialty consultations and other tests should be obtained if clinically indicated (e.g., referral to a pulmonary specialist, biopsies, CT and MRI studies). NOTE: If there are questions about biopsy findings, review by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology may be helpful.
3. Veterans should be advised to contact a VA Benefits Counselor or the appropriate VA Regional Office (telephone 1-800-827-1000) if they have questions about or wish to file a compensation claim.
4. This information letter needs to be distributed to all Ambulatory Care physicians.
5. Questions may be directed to the Office of Public Health and Environmental Hazards at 202-273-8575, or if assistance is needed to identify a B-reader. NOTE: Consultations with the VA Program Director for Pulmonary Diseases or occupational health specialists may be arranged if necessary.
6. References
a. "Sarcoidosis Among U.S. Navy Enlisted Men, 1965-1993," Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report (MMWR), Vol. 46, Number 23, June 13, 1997, pp 539-543.
b. Jajosky, P., "Sarcoidosis Diagnoses Among U.S. Military Personnel: Trends and Ship Assignment Associations," American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 14, Number 3, 1998, pp. 176-183.
S/ by Thomas Garthwaite, M.D. for
Kenneth W. Kizer, M.D., M.P.H.
Under Secretary for Health
DISTRIBUTION: CO: E-mailed 3/5/99
FLD: VISN, MA, DO, OC, OCRO, and 200 – FAX 3/5/99
EX: Boxes 104, 88, 63, 60, 54, 52, 47, and 44 – FAX 3/5/99
Allan do you know if the VA or Navy ever did a study on the effects of asbestos exposure on those WWII era ships that many of us served on? 68mustang
-
The following web site came out in the San Antonio Express-News today. The dean of the law school saw a need for the mobile law office program and states " This may be the beginning of a national movement". Lets hope that more law colleges become involved in helping veterans with legal problems. The mobile law office is headed next week to Austin and Houston, Texas. Hope you all can use this info. http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/sto...ce.3806197.html 68mustang
-
"SAN ANTONIO -- A mobile law office will be in San Antonio next week to provide free legal assistance for low-income veterans, KSAT 12 Vice-President of News Jim Boyle said Thursday.
The University of Detroit Mercy School of Law will be at the American Legion Hall Alamo Post #2 at 3518 Fredericksburg Road on Feb. 13-15."
http://www.ksat.com/news/15245729/detail.html
I just spoke to Prof Margaret Costello- who attorney Robert Walsh is affiliated with at Detroit Mercy School of Law-
and she is leaving tomorrow PM for San Antonio-with the mobile law office-
she will also be my guest on Feb 20th at SVR sattelite radio show (Stardust Radio)(6:30 EST)
These are Pro bono attorneys who can help low income veterans ( and they help homeless vets)get through the claims process at RO, BVA, and CAVC levels and in other directions of help.
By low income they mean 200% of the poverty level income per annum - usually meaning less than 20,000 per annum for single veteran-
they are funded by grant programs and thus are able to provide "pro bono" ( meaning no attorney fees at all) help to veterans-
their help is not dependent on the new Lawyers for Vets regs re: filing NOD after June 21, 2007 because of their Pro Bono status.
This is a new and unique program that hopefully can expand around the whole country eventually.
Thank you Berta for posting this info. It is sad that here in San Antonio (Military City) that a local law university does not help veterans, but does have a free program to help undocumented immigrants with immigration issues. Sorry if I offend anyone, but I believe that our veterans need the help more. 68mustang
-
I just noticed your percentage for the Meniere's. You should be getting minimum of 30% for Meniere's.
6205 Meniere's syndrome (endolymphatic hydrops):
Hearing impairment with attacks of vertigo and cerebellar gait 100
occurring more than once weekly, with or without tinnitus....
Hearing impairment with attacks of vertigo and cerebellar gait 60
occurring from one to four times a month, with or without
tinnitus.....................................................
Hearing impairment with vertigo less than once a month, with 30
or without tinnitus..........................................
Note: Evaluate Meniere's syndrome either under these criteria
or by separately evaluating vertigo (as a peripheral
vestibular disorder), hearing impairment, and tinnitus,
whichever method results in a higher overall evaluation. But
do not combine an evaluation for hearing impairment,
tinnitus, or vertigo with an evaluation under diagnostic code
6205.
This is straight from 38 CFR. This is what I was talking about on the jumps on percentage.
Mark
Thanks again for your response and I find it helpful. 68mustang
-
Sorry but that isn't allowed Meniere's under 6205 includes tinnitus as part of the condition so the tinnitus 6260 is not allowed as seperate. That would be stacking according to regs. It can be rated seperate with hearing loss and peripheral vestibular disorder if that will give a higher percentage. Probably not as Meniere's jumps quickly by itself.
Mark
Thank you for your response. 68mustang
-
Sorry, I have only filed the tinnitus claim and was denied. I could probably refile and get an IMO and get 10% for that and maybe some for hearing loss. I worked on the flight line for 13 years around helicopters. Seems to me that should be enough for hearing loss and tinnitus. I will wait until my current claim is through the DRO review process and then tackle the hearing loss and such. DJ8
Thank you for your response. 68mustang
-
Has any one filed a VA claim for Tinnitus with a secondary of Meniere's Disease and had the claim approved? 68mustang
-
68mustang,
Go to your best "Otolaryngology Specialist" and have the needed test performed and your private insurance will pay the fee.
After the test are performed, have the specialist write you a letter connecting the two.
He will know exactly how to do this.
Betty
Thank you. I will go to my private doctor and request a referral to a specialist. 68mustang
Va Turned Down Claim
in VA Disability Claims Research
Posted
Thanks vaf. You are right I should request it by certified mail. I did know that it might have to be requested by mail. Lets see what the response is through IRIS. I am still within the time limits to file an NOD if I have to.
68mustang