broncovet

I am going to post the link for the hearing loss rating tables, and there is also more information on this page: http://knol.google.com/k/jim-strickland/a-...4hm0dxfnnzs/14#

The key word is Retaliation. I hope this sets a precedent so that Veterans who have been retaliated upon by the VA can likewise file suit.

Waynes My recommendations are as follows: 1) Apply for an increase if you think your hearing loss has worsened. You can go to a private audiologist for the test to see how it compares to the VA. Many companies are glad to do hearing tests for free, hoping you will buy hearing aids from them. 2) Go back to your VA audiologist and tell him/her your hearing aids are not working. There are several causes, wax buildup, defective electronics, moisture damage, need reprogrammed, etc. My VA hearing aids work pretty good, tho hearing aids are a prosthetic like a wheel chair..the prosthetics are a help but they are not like the real thing. The VA will give you a new set of hearing aids about every 3 years, so if it has been that long, or longer, you are due for new ones. Newer is better when it comes to hearing aids. 3) Post your decibel loss on hadit or PM me. I will look it up for you to see if you are rated right. Unfortunately you have to be nearly deaf to get a hearing loss rating above 0%. You also need to tell me the speech discrimination as well as your decible loss in order to calculate your hearing loss rating.

There is new legislation proposed to give the VA a deadline. Maybe we should call our senators office and say, "Its about time". Read it here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3087

I agree with Pete. When you applied for benefits, you signed a release form, and if you didnt sign it, you wouldnt get benefits. This is no different. When the Va pays you benefits, they expect (and get) to know every single detail about you. Its just the way it is.

Yes. Isnt in interesting that the documents that the VA RO "looses" almost always favors the Veteran? Why doesnt the VARO shred C and P exams that are UNFAVORABLE to the Veteran? Never. That bad exam will NEVER get lost in the shuffle, never get ignored, and instead will be cited for reasons they denied you. I am glad the hearing loss manual helped you..on page 60 it explains how hearing loss, depression, tinnitus and occupational deficiencies (that is, TDIU) are all related.

Good Post, Hoppy, and I agree. Even a dog understands, "you dont bite the hand that feeds you." QTC C and P examiners are very well paid for their work..on the order of $500 per hour. It is very easy for the VA to simply hire the C and P examiners that write medical opinions to support their position. The VA's position is that all Veterans are crooked and are trying to get benefits they do not deserve. A Veterans own words mean nothing. Even Veterans words spoken to his doctor are not beleived by the VA. In most cases, a Veteran telling his doctor something does not result in benefits..the Veterans words have to be verified about sixteen different ways. Blood Tests, past medical history, DD214's, X rays, MRI's, buddy statements, C and P exams (the medical examiner is selected by the VA..not the Veteran), prescription records, military history, etc, etc, all has to be consistent with the Veterans statements before the Veteran is believed, and, even then, often the Veteran is not given the benefit of the doubt, as required by regulations. Then, the Veterans C and P exams are often lost, shredded, or misinterpreted and which is almost never in the Veterans favor. There is no requirement that the VA follow its own regulations, because there is simply no penalty when they do not. With the VA's "zero enforcement of regulations" policy, VARO's are free to violate regulations, and there are no penalties for not doing so..not even wrist slaps. The Veteran pays the price when the VA violates regulations...even when the Veteran successfully appeals, the VA has gotten an interest free loan from the Veteran for his retro. In order to "regulate" C and P examiners, the VA simply flexes the $ muscle. The C and P examiner will simply not be given future examinations if the VA feels they are too lenient with the Veteran in offering medical opinions which award benefits, and, instead, hire an examiner in line with their own agenda. With the VA in complete control of C and P exams, the Veteran looses. Almost everyone understands that you dont mess with the guy who signs your checks.

Sam Yes, take Berta's advice: Write them a letter explaining their math was off and why you think so. You have nothing to loose, and you can always file a NOD later, but make sure the NOD is filed BEFORE the year is up..DONT WAIT UNTIL THE LAST DAY..file the NOD a month early, then file it Certified Mail Return Reciept Requested as the VA has a tendency to "loose" documents that benefit the Veteran.

Rentalguy You have helped others on this board, and I thank you for that. IMHO you should NEVER wait to apply for benefits for the following reasons: 1. Waiting to apply costs you money as it is a later effective date. 2. Waiting to apply only seems to prevent delays, because delays are as inevitable as the sun coming up tommorrow. The VA WILL Delay your claim, no matter what. They have plenty of financial incentives to delay claims. For example: a) Bonuses are paid when VA employees delay claims (though the Va denies this, the VAOIG says differently) http://www.vawatchdog.org/09/nf09/nfmay09/nf052209-5.htm :D The Veteran may die before approval, so the longer the VA delays, the more likely the Veteran is to die before approval, and then VA pays nothing. c) The Veteran may abandon his claim and the VA wont pay, and Veterans sometimes abandon claims because they forget about them because it takes so long. d) Even if the claim is approved, with retro, the VA gets an interest free loan from the Veteran because they pay 0% interest to the Veteran on retro payments. Bottom Line: Waiting to apply costs you money in retro, and does not "hurry up" your claim, the VA simply uses a different excuse to delay you.

Rock I agree. While I certainly do appreciate combat Veterans, the dividing line between combat/non combat Veterans is very fuzzy because: 1. Intent. When most people join the military in war time, (or even not wartime..war can flare up again at any time), they know or should know that they may well be deployed to a combat zone. Whether they are actually deployed or not usually depends on the decisions of military management, not the Veteran. In a similar way, many combat Veterans were drafted and were there in the combat zone not necessarily because that was their choice, but because they were following orders and serving their country. 2. Both "combat" Veterans and Veterans considered non combat can be killed or injured and a victim of war. One example of this are nurses killed during the bombing of world war 2 at Pearl Harbor. Should the nurses/or their famalies be denied benefits because they were designated "non combat" even tho they were actually killed or injured by enemy warfare? Considering the above, it is unclear that there should be any difference in benefits between combat or non combat Veterans because BOTH laid their life on the line for our country. It is the least we can do for our Veterans, whether or not they were designated "combat" or "non combat" by the powers that be to offer them benefits, because both of these groups have risked their own life for our freedoms. JMHO

There is something called a request for reconsideration if you feel there is a clerical error. They may even fix it.

Carlie In a PM, I sent you the link to the watchdog article showing, in 2006, the "average" QTC hearing exam was $495.55 and that article pointed that QTC medical examiners had received a raise exceeding 400%. That watchdog article is here: http://www.vawatchdog.org/old%20newsflashe...5-10-2006-9.htm Further, in this 2006 article, it points out that QTC is pressured to deny Veterans: http://www.vawatchdog.org/old%20newsflashe...4-23-2006-6.htm Veterans groups and radio talk shows recently have seized on Principi's ties to QTC and accused him of conflicts of interest. John Hennon, who broadcasts a veterans show in Illinois, said he was convinced that QTC "was contracted to deny as many claims as it could." He blamed Principi. He said it was "not a surprise" that the former secretary had an interest in QTC. Skip Dreps, head of government relations for the Northwest chapter of Paralyzed Veterans of America, said: "I'm disappointed in the secretary." He said he regretted "even the appearance of a conflict of interest." QTC has additional critics.

I agree. File a Notice of disagreement if you do not agree, and if you think you are entilted to more, and that your condition has worsened, also file a request for increase. Remember to send these documents to the VA certified, return receipt requested as they have a tendency to shred these things then complain that you filed your NOD beyond the one year period.

Its called "pass the buck" and it is the VA way. If the VA cant fix the problem, they can certainly fix the blame. The VA sees it this way, in summary: The shredded document scandal is the fault of untrained employees. The contanimated equipment scandall is the fault of the 55 Veterans who got infected with HIV and hepatitis in order to obtain benefits by alleging dirty equipment. The 10,000 Veterans unprocessed claim files discovered in Detroit is the fault of defective shredding equipment. The one million claim backlog is the fault of Veterans because they file too many claims. The high Veteran suicide rate is the fault of Veterans drug and alcohol abuse. The high Homelessness rate among Veterans is the fault of civilains for not being homeless more, in order to make the VA look bad. All of these things are isolated incidents which occur only rarely and do not indicate a pattern of poor service by the VA to the Veteran. The Va denies that any of these things occurred, but they are taking steps to make sure they dont happen again.

Unfortunately, I think Basser and testvet are right and I am wrong. I interpreted it to mean if the CPI stays the same the INCREASE stays the same, that is, we get our raise. They interpret it to mean if the CPI stays the same or lowers, the Compensation remains the same, that is, NO RAISE. No doubt the powers that be will interpret that to mean the 'favor the Veteran' rule which REALLY MEANS: "Give lip service to the Veterans concerns then forget the Veteran"

I think the difference is IMO is Independent medical Opinion, where the Doctor reviews the medical records, and offers his opinion. AN IME adds that the doctor does an examination, in addition to a review of the Veterans medical history. Altho I have not heard this on this board, it would seem to me that the doctor personally examining the Veteran (IME) would likely bear more weight than him just reviewing the records and what other doctors had written in his chart. JMHO

John.. Ten years is not even close to the longest decision done by a VARO. I am personally acquainted with a Veteran who has been waiting for his decision since 1973, more than 3 decades. He has gotten congressmen involved, however, the VA just keeps delaying him. About every six months the Va sends to the congressman a statement to the effect "We are making progress on his claim, while we havent reached a decision yet, you can be assured that we havent forgotton about this Veteran". I thought my 7 year delay was bad..but the fact is the VA has no requirement to EVER make a decision. Even then they can shirk the issue and decide only part of the claim, then "deemed deny" the rest, that is, secret denial.

Unfortunately, for Veterans, something has been done about it. Ohio is pretty much at the bottom of the pile..pays less than all other states. So what did they do about this? They promoted Christine Alford (the former manager of the Cleveland Regional Office) to the VA central office so they can help reduce compensation to Veterans in all states, not just Ohio. It did not matter that Cleveland Ohio was one of the worst states of the shredded documents, in fact, in my humble opinion, that shredding helped her win her promotion.

Maine VARO has a reputation for one of the best.

IMHO I would humbly suggest you check with a local physican, with a specialty in the IMO that you are seeking. Altho Dr. Bash has helped a lot of Veterans, I think he has written so many IMO's that RO's do not regard his IMO's as credible. I contacted Dr. Bash and I thought his fee for an IMO was rather pricey..if I recall it was $3000. Dr. Bash did tell me that his fee could be paid out of retro, so $3000 would not hurt so bad then. Hiring Dr. Bash may well be more effective at winning your claim than a lawyer. That being said, I think a local physicain in your area would work better, and maybe cheaper. You would need to explain to the physicain that you feel your condition is related to military service and give him your reasons. If the doctor agrees with you, then you need to have him state, in his report in nearly these words: "I have examined the patient, and have extensively reviewed his medical records. In my opinion, this Veterans condition is most likely due to an injury he suffered while in military service" Further, the physician should probably cite scientific references such as medical journals as to why he thinks your arthritis in your foot, for example, is related to the foot fracture you suffered while in the military.

I would add that congress is not helping Veterans. Recent legislation gives civilains a $400 economic stimulus, while Veterans get $250. It does not pay to be a Veteran.

Yes..and if this information is erroneous, then someone should be able to supply a link as to why or what regulation makes it erroneous. They should not just "shoot from the hip" and say the information is erroneous, when they have no idea whether it is or not. In Carlies hypothetical example, one could cite the the regulations showing her example to be inaccurate. C&P man: I think what they are saying here, with the word chronic is that your condition needs to be ONGOING. It is not enough for you to break your ankle in service..you broke your ankle, they put a cast on it and fixed it. Done. To be compensated, you have to show that the ankle continues to give you pain, that you have been to the doctor multiple times since your military service ended. You have chronic pain that continues since your injury. If you did NOT go to the doctor about your broken ankle pain since 1973, then the VA is going to say your claim lacks chronicity and will be denied, even if it starts hurting again in 2009, because that pain could be from skiing last winter, not your broken ankle in 1973.

I agree with much of what has been said. I do think congress can do something. Maybe something like the credit report. If you protest your credit report and they cant prove it to be true, they have to remove that negative item in 30 days period. If a Veteran files for benefits, the VA should have a time limit to process. Congress could impose a time limit. An example would be that if the VA can not offer a decision (and thus a reason to deny) in 6 months, the claim should be approved. The "six month time clock" for older claims could start on the same date. If the VA cant offer a decision in 6 months, the claim should be automatically approved. Then, they should shorten the six months time to five months next year, and four months the year after. We need them to "just say no" to claims taking years. We have time limits, they should have them also. JMHO

Iraqx2 That is the $64,000 question: "Will we get a 5,8% raise or not, or will we get something else." According to watchdog.org we are on track for a zero percent cola: http://www.vawatchdog.org/09/nf09/nfjun09/nf061809-1.htm According to at least one poster, the legislation says that if the cola is zero%, then we get what we got last year, which was about 5.8%. I will go out on a limb and venture this guess: I beleive Barack Obama will sign this legislation, and I also beleive that the cola will be zero or negative at the end of the year. Bottom Line: YES, I predict we will get the 5.8% raise in December. I further predict we wont get the 25% quality of life raise talked about this year, at least.

Its up to you, but a DRO review is usually much faster than a DRO HEARING. Reason: Hearing officers are booked up for several years, while DRO reviews can be done at the regional office, so scheduling a hearing takes a long time. You wont get to speak to a DRO officer with a DRO review, but you can tell your side of the story on a "STatement in support of claim" You can carefully plan out exactly what you want to write down, but you could get tripped up in a hearing, where they ask you questions. IMHO, you best bet is a DRO review and skip the hearing.