Interested

You can't get two K awards To be technically precise, this is incorrect. As you noted, a veteran cannot receive two awards of SMC-k for Loss of Use of a Creative Organ. However, a veteran may receive SMC-k for other reasons. It's all right here in 38 CFR 3.350(a)(1) through (6) http://www.benefits....ART3/S3_350.DOC .

As for your ineffectual attempt at baiting, that concept had crossed my mind but I as a charitable person ignored it - that word was brought up by another. Again, if I were not so charitable, I prolly should feel offended by such a weak attempt. My "opinion" has little to do with anything. What do the books say? One does not have to agree with what is in the books, but one must follow the books. However, if you work hard enough - rather than complaining as another astute poster noted, you just might get things changed. Would I like whatever change comes about? Mebbe, mebbe not - but I go along with it. While he/she didn'tclarify that aspect of the question asked, "I feel" he/she sortadanced around the CRT portion, with regard to the VA's handling of the"s" award. You feel? You feel? What is unclear in your mind about: Posted 20September 2011 - 01:25 PM (snip) Once the single 100% (or 100% equivalent) is established, it is disregarded for purposes of future computations. You effectively start over with the remaining disabilities, which are combined per 38 CFR 4.26 (if appropriate) and 38 CFR 4.25.

Although it prolly won't change the outcome, please clarify what the 20%+10%+10%+10%+10% disabilities are.

Whatever.

Did anyone bother to read 38 CFR 4.25(b ) http://www.benefits....PART4/S4_25.DOC as I suggested? For those who didn't use the link, I'll make it real easy for y'all: (b) Except as otherwiseprovided in this schedule, the disabilities arising from a single diseaseentity, e.g., arthritis, multiple sclerosis, cerebrovascular accident, etc.,are to be rated separately as are all other disabling conditions, if any. All disabilitiesare then to be combined as described in paragraph (a) of this section. Theconversion to the nearest degree divisible by 10 will be done only once perrating decision, will follow the combining of all disabilities, and will be thelast procedure in determining the combined degree of disability. (emphasis added). The only exception that I am aware of is the bilateral factor from 38 CFR 4.26. It seems pretty clear cut to me. I don't see it as a benefit of the doubt issue at all.

I, personally, believe the VA continues to use the CRT when figuring SMC awards. I, personally, believe you are correct. However, I do not believe using the Combined Ratings Table violates the SMC "s" award criteria (or, for that matter, the criteria for award of the additional half-step of SMC for Additional independent 50 percentdisabilities. ) Once the single 100% (or 100% equivalent) is established, it is disregarded for purposes of future computations. You effectively start over with the remaining disabilities, which are combined per 38 CFR 4.26 (if appropriate) and 38 CFR 4.25. It would appears to me that 38 CFR 4.25(b) http://www.benefits....PART4/S4_25.DOC is operative here. If you disagree, you prolly need to work on sumpin' that would establish ' ... what the sense of Congress was ... ' when 3.350(s) was written.

Before I guess at what you're really asking and provide an inadequate answer, please expand and clarify even tho it penalizes the claimant "again" for the same disabilities . As always, a specific example would be helpful.

would calcification of the abdominal aortic valve be consider IHD Not usually. Ischemic heart disease (also referred to as coronary artery disease) usually is associated with the coronary arteries that rise from the aorta and "feed" the heart.

Just some minor rambling ... With a 10% ejection fraction, you shoulda/coulda applied for an increase for your CAD because an EF of 10% is low, really low. However, that claim for increase likely would not result in any increased compensation at this time because I presume you already are at the SMC-s level. Because you had a pacemaker installed earlier this week, there is a statutory 100% for two months, followed by a reduction to whatever's appropriate. Again, there would not appear to be increased compensation at this time. Nonetheless, although you likely would not receive any additional compensation, I encourage you to file because doing so would result in a better claims history that you might need, oh let's say, 5 years from now. You can apply for Aid and Attendance. The criteria for A&A are at 3.352(a) http://www.benefits....ART3/S3_352.DOC . While there is no absolute prohibition AFAIK against granting A&A on a temporary basis (if your cardiac symptoms do improve), it is not all that common - usually A&A is a permanent basis. But, you can try .... As for door widening ... at this moment, it would appear that you qualify only for the Home Improvements and Structural Alterations (HISA) http://www.prostheti...a.gov/HISA2.asp program. You apply for HISA at your local VAMC Prosthetics Department. There are other VA home improvement programs, administered through the VARO and the Home Loan Department http://www.benefits....meloans/sah.asp . At this moment, it does not appear that you meet the criteria for either of the SAH programs. All the programs require time, lots of it. In the short term, how about offset hinges http://www.dynamic-l...or-hinge/#clear ? These effectively "widen" a doorway by 2 inches, and may be just the amount you need. You can buy them on-line, or usually locally at a medical supply store. Merry Christmas.

Good info but 3.309 must be read with 38 CFR 3.307 http://www.benefits....ART3/S3_307.DOC . The veteran must understand that there are time limits for most of these presumptives. These time limits refer to actual diagnosis of the presumptive condition, or objective records during the presumptive period that show symptoms of the condition. That is, a claim does not have to be filed within these periods, but that the condition was diagnosed or manifested during that period. Another presumptive is ALS, mentioned in 38 CFR 3.318 http://www.benefits....ART3/S3_318.DOC . While not exactly a presumptive, but close, may be cardiac disease following one or more LE amputations , ref: http://www.benefits....RT3/S3_310.DOC. There may be other gems hidden here and there.

Well, a VA examination is not absolutely required if the medical evidence accompanying the claim is adequate for ratingpurposes per 38 CFR 3.326(a) http://www.benefits....ART3/S3_326.DOC . However, I have seen few claims that did not need a CP&E. Without knowing specifically what the claim is for, that is, the claimed disability and what medical evidence was provided, it's difficult to say whether a CP&E would be helpful. On the negative side, why would I waste a CP&E slot if there was no way that I could grant the claim? The classic example is when a troop makes an AO related claim but there is no record that the troop was ever in Vietnam; there was no evidence that the troop was otherwise exposed to one of the listed herbicides; there was no evidence that I could grant on a direct basis; and, there was no evidence that I could grant based on the 'normal' presumptive basis. So, if I wouldn't be able to grant, why waste an exam slot? Finally, I wouldn't necessarily take as gospel everything I read on eBenefits. Just sayin' ...

1. Yes. 2. Yes.

Rating criteria for back conditions are at 38 CFR 4.71a http://www.benefits....ART4/S4_71a.DOC . Diagnostic Codes (DC) 5237 or 5243 may be appropriate. Review General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine and Formula for Rating Intervertebral DiscSyndrome Based on Incapacitating Episodes . You can be evaluated under one, not both, sets of criteria.

See, this is what I get for guessing that your stressor was combat related. In your case, more information is required. While others have made good suggestions, there are other sources to validate your stressor. You have to show evidence that you were involved in the event, not just that you were on-base. If you received a medal for your actions, what does the Citation To Accompany the Award of __________" say? During claims development, it is routine to request your 201/personnel file ... do any or your proficiency or performance reports comment on the event? Additionally, there are unit daily reports and your name perhaps may be mentioned in the reports; give the VARO the date of the event and ask them to request the daily unit reports. And finally, do you have proof of a current disability? That is, are you receiving treatment for a psychiatric disorder, and have you actually been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder?

What was the rationale on the Rating Decision for assigning the 10%? What was your historical ejection fraction or METs in 2002? Have you had treatments for a heart condition from 2002 to whenever the 48% EF was determined? Did those treatment records report any EF or METs? Did you have actual or chemical stress tests through the years and what were the results? Did you have any echocardiograms? Did the echos report hypertrophy?