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

Interested

Third Class Petty Officers
  • Posts

    88
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Interested

  1. 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 .
  2. 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.
  3. Although it prolly won't change the outcome, please clarify what the 20%+10%+10%+10%+10% disabilities are.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Interested

    Ihd

    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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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' ...
  11. 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.
  12. 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?
  13. 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?
  14. If no one cares to ask what those situations are, it can hardly be called a controversy, now can it? As for bait and bs is that something that doesn't follow the party line? This is kinda like the Republican pre-election 'debate' last Monday ... when any of the contestants dared make a comment that wasn't in line with the talking points of the "sponsors", they were booed by the Peanut Gallery.
  15. will the va find my stressers If the stressor is associated with one of the magic medals, the answer is yes. If one of the designated medals is recorded in your DD Form 214, that generally suffices. In the case of a claim for post-traumatic stress disorder, it's part of the development to request your personnel file, the '201 file' from the Records Center; all medal awards should be recorded in the 201 file. If the stressor is not associated with one of the designated medals, some report or mention of it is - hopefully - in your Service Medical Records, if you had treatment associated with the stressor. Or do i have to tell them where to look? You could, if it makes you feel better. Does the va really read ev ererything? I'd say yes. I just dont want them to miss this info!! I doubt that anything gets missed. However, how much credence or validity is given, ...?
  16. As for your question, the two conditions are rated separately. As for your comment about raters most of the ones I have had ignore what surgeons and Doctors say and I believe that they (raters) will decide based on their opinion not my Doctors , it's about as valid as saying that most veterans are lying about their claims. FWIW, it's sometimes appropriate to ignore or disregard a doctor's opinion. (there, that should stir up some controversy).
  17. I am not aware of any specific regulation or policy that requires Service Medical Records to be reviewed by the examiner for all veterans' claims. It may be thought of as nice to do so, but I am torn about the actual utility to do this on a routine basis. The only time review of the medical records is required is when I ask for a medical opinion, that is, " ... is this event dated ______ less likely/as likely/more likely related to this ____ current condition?" Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA, from the repository of all internet knowledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VistA ) is the VA health information management system. Some agencies have full access to entering data, whereas some agencies have only viewing privileges. At present, VistA does not incorporate Service Medical Records, however it appears that a goal is to create some sort of Electronic Health Record (EHR) exchange.
  18. My estimate was not based at all on TBI (claimed as spinning), PTSD, or any of the other items that you had not specifically claimed. For purposes of the estimation I gave, I assigned the percentages that I was absolutely sure of. So, the 60% range was good. It's probably better to under promise and over deliver though. WRT any evaluation for TBI, I'd defer this issue for further development; that statement does not mean that I would not grant service connection, just that some information needs clarification. As I recall from the audiology exam, the audiologist provided a diagnosis of TBI and this type of diagnosis is not usually made by an audiologist. I'd defer the issue of TBI for another CP&E by a neurologist to confirm that diagnosis. As for PTSD, I would defer this also for the above clarification. I recall that the symptoms attributed to the TBI in the audiology exam duplicated many of the symptoms mentioned in the psychiatric examination. Because using the same set of symptoms/findings to support two different evaluations is called "pyramiding", I would want a better feel of the overall situation before I finalized. While you may believe that your other, specifically not claimed items will be dealt with automatically .... mebbe, mebbe not. A specific claim is prolly best. An earlier poster mentioned It looks like your hearing is totally shot in both ears. Rather than guess, I took the time to run the numbers through 38 CFR 4.85, Tables VI and VII and I find a 0% evaluation. Of course, whoever rates your claim may simply choose to ignore everything and just slap on ratings.
  19. Unfortunately, although there is a required certification for veterans service officers, there is a wide variability in capabilities from office to office, year to year (as staff moves), and from region to region. However, in my observation, the state veterans offices seem to be well run and knowledgeable. Of course, YMMV.
  20. Thank you for the update, that the IU issue is for historical rating purposes.
  21. As for time frame .... if the VA Regional Office with your claims file intends for you to have a re-examination, actions to schedule them usually begin about 3 1/2 - 4 years after service connection or evaluation award. Others have made good suggestions about continuing treatment. However, AND I DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS, you may choose to do nothing. Interesting question isn't it, cure or comp? If you do have a reexamination, make sure that the VARO knows where you've had treatments, whether at a VAMC, a Military Treatment Facility or from a civilian practitioner. Following is some general (and brief) information about future examinations, preservation of service connection, and preservation of evaluations. There are three time frames of importance: 1. Five years of service connection and/or award of a particular evaluation. Before the five year point, I may propose to reduce an evaluation based on only one reexamination. However, after 5 years of service connection or a particular evaluation, a disability is generally considered static and I generally must have another re-examination to propose to reduce. Note: I can even propose to sever service connection up to the 10 year point. 2. Ten years of service connection. After ten years of service connection, service connection cannot be withdrawn (subject to fraud, etc). However, I can propose a reduction based on medical evidence or reexamination. 3. Twenty years after award of a particular evaluation. After 20 years, a particular rating evaluation becomes "set", that is, if you have had a 30% for a particular disability for 20 years, the evaluation cannot be reduced lower than 30%. However, if you had that 30% rating for twenty years and get an increase to 50% at the 20 year point, the 50% would not be protected for another 20 years. However, the 30% level is protected. Simple, isn't it? Please don't obsess. No matter what anyone says, it really is time-consuming and moderately to very difficult to reduce an evaluation and particularly to sever service connection.
  22. I try not to get into these message board mictuation contests but ... broncovet, you wrote: This is very close to CUE. Rating specialists can not substitute their own unsubstantiated medical opinion for that of a qualifed medical professional. I would "nail" them on this. What is available for review does not appear to support the above statement. Would it be more likely that the rater merely quoted the examiner's statement from the VAE? Instead of fabricating some great conspiracy, why don't you apply Occam's Razor (from the repository of all internet knowledge http://en.wikipedia....Occam%27s_Razor )? Also, I'm appalled that you didn't choose to criticize this: Although there is a record of treatment in service for pes cavus claimed as right foot condition, no permanent residual or chronic disability subject to service connection is shown by the service medical records or demonstrated by evidence following service.
  23. I'm not about to wade through your C&P records again, so I'll let you do it ... As I recall, at the end of the general C&P (I believe it was by QTC) there is a fairly lengthy Remarks section about your feet (and perhaps other things too). Also as I recall, there were some radiological reports for your feet. It's not totally clear to me whether you had claimed a foot problem or whether this came up during the exam. If you claimed it, sorry for getting you hot and bothered. If you had not claimed a foot problem, you likely should.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use