Click To Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Click To Read Current Posts
Read Disability Claims Articles View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Search | Rules
Van
-
Posts
23 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
VA Disability and Benefits Information
VA Benefits News
Store
Posts posted by Van
-
-
What time on the 5th?
-
When you go in for this exam tell them everything that is wrong down to the smallest detail that you can. This will be a baseline for you and any problems that may arise. If you have many health problems make a list before you go in and reference whenever needed so you get everything down.
I first of all do not like getting near a VA medical facility, but with encouragement from this site I decided to look into the AO Exam. To make a long story short, I filled out the required forms and along with my DD 214 mailed them to the VA Clinic here in San Antonio. This was returned as the post office said the clinic did not exist. Alright, so I mailed it to the main VA hospital, again it did not exist. The only reason that I mailed it instead of taking it myself is that I still work and own a Tax Practice. I was working 18 hour days. One day I left my regular job early (4:00PM) and drove to the VA Clinic. I was late. Here is where I made the cardinal error no Veteran should ever make. Go to a VA office alone. The VA personnel that I went to see of course had already left. So, what do I do just something so stupid that I could kick myself. A Government Security person ask me to give him the forms and he wlould put it on the VA person's desk. I wrote my contact number on the form. I have not heardx from the VA person, I have called several times no response. I realize most of this is my fault, but why does it have to be so hard?Papa
-
Ask for everything. Put emphasis on the heart disease. Ask your private doctor. Take your private medical records with you when you see the cardiologists at DVA if they don't have these records. You don't have to wait for copies, you can go to release of records and get your records for that day. If you don't have many medical records with DVA ask for all your records the day of your visit. It may only take a few minutes and you can walk out with complete copies of your records.
If the cardiologists says yes you have IHD ask him for copies. My pulmonologists gave me copies of all my test today with my diagnosis while we were talking. You have a right to all this info.
First some background; I don't have my VAMC medical records yet but I have private medical records that diagnose me with Aortic Atherosclerosis. I've had several cardio-vascular tests done thru the VA in the past 2 years and I'm going to my VAMC in a couple days for my routine labs/office visit.So here my question; Is it appropriate for me to ask my doc if I have a IHD diagnosis on my file? Do you think they will tell me?
If not, does anybody know if there is any way I can find out the diagnoses I have on file without having to wait for the medical records.
Thanks ahead for any advise you can give me.
-
His argument is lost on the assumption of exposure. Each individual is different and will be affected differently. Without testing done at the time there is no way to tell whether a pesticides applicator on Guam, or a Bluewater vet, the men that handled these toxics in Okinawa, or the K9 corps in Thailand weren't exposed to more than some in country.
I have to agree with him that many infantryman were more likely exposed and to higher amounts, but that is because of the base camps mostly and military procedures. Their drinking water and the use of pesticides comes to mind. And each individual is different.
The EPA determined a long time ago there is no safe level for dioxin. And many of the substances military personnel were ingesting are synergistic or dioxin forming substances. How would you determine?
With AO, the laws were settled on the herbs, but everyone knew it was more than just that. And ultimately they narrowed it down to blaming TCDD for everyones ills.
This persons assumptions show what it's like when you don't have all the info or taylor your opinion to meet your agenda. His opinion is pretty myopic.
There was a comment posted today, from someone on the proposed new regulations for IHD today. To come to the point, there are two things I disagree with this person on. They are:1. Vietnam vets should be sorted out to determine those with the likelihood of more exposure than other Vietnam vets and those rated higher than other Vietnam vets. (I thought a C&P exam would do this)
2. More tests should be done.
I don't agree his methodology in the manner of sorting out Vietnam vets to try to determine who was more exposed than others. Also, we don't need anymore tests. Too many vets have died already just for us survivors to get to this point.
Below is an excerpt from this person. Like I said, I totally disagree here on this one.
"I served as an Infantryman, squad leader, in the US Army; 4th ID; 2/8th Inf.; Republic of Vietnam 1969-1970. I am a Registered Nurse. I hold a B.S. in Biochemistry. I was a claims examiner-processor in the Fen-Phen settlement case for over a year.
Given the aforementioned qualifications as a basis for my recommendations, I suggest that:1. The process for qualifying and processing claims with regard to cardio-pulmonary disease in the Fen-Phen case be studied so as to more objectively, efficiently, and justly process claims with regard to Agent Orange and Ischemic Heart Disease. 2. Those more likely to have been exposed on a daily basis to Agent Orange in Vietnam, example Infantryman, should receive both a greater presumption of Ischemic Heart Disease related to the same, a greater presumption of acute and long term adverse affects related to the same, and; as a result, a greater disability rating. 3. The Biochemical and Bio-mechanical adverse affects on cardiac tissues may vary based upon other unique stressors placed upon those exposed to the same while in Vietnam. That is, those more likely to be exposed to a variety of chemical, environmental, physical, and emotional stressors (infantryman for example) and more likely to demonstrate signs and symptoms of ACS acute coronary syndrome (unstable angina, myocardial infarction related to the same than those while in Vietnam, were not so exposed. 4. There may need to be studies demonstrating and elucidating the unique adverse biophysical, and biochemical on the heart by Agent Orange, a person, such as more appropriate diagnosis and treatment of the same can be instituted."
Below is the website where you can read up on the comments.
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=VA-2010-VBA-0005
I am also not the least bit impressed with this person's "aforementioned qualifications". Now if he worked for the Institute of Medicine on the VA IHD study, I might think differently. But, this is a free country, I guess. Your thoughts???????
-
Actually I'm waiting for the DRO decision to see how to proceed. That should be in the next couple of days. The DRO said I was first and it would be about 30 days. I did have to remind her that my case has accelerated status.
The DRO also brought up that my IME connected my cancer to AO(sts) exposure in service. The IME also connected my fibromyalgia to service. The DRO wanted me to submit a claim then but I refused. I want to put everything together. I had the IME done in Feb. 2010 for the asbestosis/pleural plaques and the AO exposure(This is for my new claim). He added in the fibromyalgia. He also confirmed asbestosis because the C and P examiner said I didn't have it. She didn't read my records and I wanted to make sure I countered what she said. She totally missed it, my records are clear. The DRO told me she pays almost no attention to the C and P examiners because there are so many mistakes.
I will be submitting a case for the IHD and AO. That's a given. The C and P I had at the time, for the radiation and nsc, found my heart disease was at least 40% disabiling, that was in 1995. He also found me 100% disabled for my nsc and that I was unemployable.
My cardiologists said the heart disease is being affected by the lung disease. I've got impaired lung function and this just came up last week, my doctor believes I have cor pulmonale and that too is associated with the asbestos exposure.
This is really going to be confusing for DVA. It is for me.
Since they already ruled out radiation as etiology for the IHD you have-as long as you had exposure at AO- I would think your EED would go back to the first IHD claim you filed.
But this part might impact on that:
"And to top it off I'm sc for asbestosis/pleural plaques that is also related to my heart disease. The DRO is determining what parts of my heart disease are associated."
If a doctor has stated that the asbestos has aggravated the heart disease -that would make for secondary service connection-of the heart disease -
But if they deny that asbestos contributed or caused the heart disease, then I would think Nehmer would kick in back to the very first claim in which you raised the IHD.
Have you formally filed for the IHD yet as due to O under the new presumptives?
Make sure you tell them that they denied you in the past-it would be good to attach the older denial and remind them to apply Nehmer to your EED.
I dont think any AO vet should depend on the VA to find any past denials in the C files.
-
If you've never filed for IHD and AO exposure the date you file will be the date your claim will begin.(If the filing date falls on or after the posting)
If you filed for IHD and AO exposure years ago, the DVA is supposed to readjudicate your case from the time you first filed, not when they redo or you remind them that your case falls under the IHD rules and Nehmer.
This is my take on these new presumptives.
-
This is really going to be interesting with my case. I have a host of heart problems and IHD is a part. I first filed for the IHD for my radiation exposure in 1994. Several years later I added as due to AO as well, that was in 2000 and this became a Nehmer case. I lost this case for AO and radiation for late filing at the CAVC in 2009. And to top it off I'm sc for asbestosis/pleural plaques that is also related to my heart disease. The DRO is determining what parts of my heart disease are associated.
Berta, this is a can of worms and I can see this will increase the backlog substantially. This is the toughest of all the diseases that are presumptive for AO.
http://www.nvlsp.org/Information/ArticleLi...%20Date%20RulesLots of legalize here - however- if there was no prior claim denied -a claim that could be construed as involving the same disability as one of the 3 new presumptives-then the date of filing the claim will surely be the date they use for the retro for cl;aims filed under the new regs.
Although the VA is supposed to search for any previously denied claim under these proposed regs-I think it is best that any vet who might have been denied for an AO condition in the past should dig out all of their older decisions.
FTCAers and 1151ers under new AO regs have again been overlooked.(Of COur$e)
Since the VA didn't diagnose my husband's IHD (until I filed FTCA case and sent them definite evidence of MY diagnosis based on their medical records )- they did award recently death directly due to AO but still refuse to consider SMC and rate his AO disabilities-which they malpracticed on.
What got me when I read the financial projections the VA out into the regs-they forgot to estimate how many veterans with AO disabilities they might well have misdiagnosed-and if they never diagnosed the AO condition-they saved money on treatment for it and also saved money under the Nehmer court order.
I am appealing that part of my award as to lack of any SMC consideration-and also filing a Petition for Equitable Relief with the Secretary.
I have to- the VA has never had a similiar case,so there is no precedent and nothing in Nehmer to account for FTCA or 1151 AO claims.
I will be talking to lawyer at NVLSP next week and of there is any other new info re: these new regs I will pass it on-but it would certainly appear at the NVLSP web site.
The entire gamit of Nehmer I and Nehmer II is at their above web site.
-
Since 1966 I have believed that I was exposure to AO @ FT Lewis, WA. The only reason I believed it an AO a buddy on same detail was a Vietnam Vet. When I became disabling I strongly believed that my prostate cancer, DMII, and severe PN were all caused by this AO exposure. In some ways I had a place to hang my hat on a reason, place and time of what happen to me.
After tons of research I cannot find any AO at FT Lewis...
Thanks to this web site I researched EPA – Superfund Cleanup – NIH – CDC – NIOSH – IARC
Fort Lewis has TCE in post drinking water. Pesticide exposure when assigned to clean up detail (This is same assignment I believed was the AO exposure) and the old WWII barracks we lived were over sprayed with pesticides when idle years after Korea war and the start of Vietnam
My local Neurologist an Army veteran also suggested that I connect the dots from being station at FT Lewis was the cause of my DMII and my secondary condition being PN and PC. I had been looking at PN because this is what caused me to be disabled and stop working. The Neurologist will write an IMO letter to VA to support my DMII ~ PN.
I would like to thank the members that help point me in searching other reason for my health problems.
Ken
Ken don't limit yourself to just looking for AO or Agent Orange. Try herbicide Orange(HO), 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, picloram, cacodylic acid, herbicides, pesticides(herbicides are a pesticide) vegetation control, and most of all dioxin(2,3,7,8TCDD). Also you can try contamination like TPH's, PAH's, SVOC's, VOC's.(Pesticides can be in a number of these chemical catergories)You also might want to look at EPA(superfund), ATSDR, Chemical Corps, GAO. Any agency or outside contractor who may have done testing of the soil or drinking water.
-
The short answer is no. These are insecticides. But many insecticides like DDT create dioxin(2,3,7,8TCDD) when burned. Dioxin is the byproducy of the manufacture of 2,4,5-T or the one half of AO, the other being 2,4-D.
That being said these insecticides are very toxic and have problems of their own. These are nothing other than chemical weapons called pesticides.
-
When you get the appointment for the AO exam make sure you have compiled a list of all your problems, everything to the smallest detail.
As for tinnitus if you are already 10% sc then I don't think it can be increased. Can someone opine that has the straight info? I think 10% is max for tinnitus.
-
The reports cited are for two bases. Hunters Point Naval Shipyard(HPNSY) and The Treasure Island(TI) naval base. HPNSY is referred to as Hunters Point Annex. HPNSY is the more contaminated of the two. The poll only ask if we were stationed at TI.
HPNSY is where most of the radioactive wastes are. This base was the main decontamination station for ships from the nuclear weapons testing and for many of the ships from Yankee Station during Viet Nam. It was doing many if not all of the birdfarms. It was closed in I believe 1974. TI was closed much later. HPNSY was also the home to Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory(NRDL) They put together all the nuclear weapons used in the Pacific. They also experimented extensively with radiation and the bay area.
-
Ihd
in Agent Orange
I am looking for feedback from some of you knowledgible veterans on this forum.U.S. Army 1967-1973 RVN 1969-1971
History; Heart attack in Jan. 05, Triple bypass in Nov 05. Have ISD per private Cardiologist, 2 Stents in July 09, I am currantly being treated at VA hospital in Johnston City, TN for Heart, HBP, Sleep Disorder(severe sleep apenea, use bi-pap machine when I do sleep),Enlarged Prostrate, Restless Leg Disorder
11 different meds supplied by VA pharm.
I filed for SC,ed Heart Disease in 2005 and was denied,now that IHD is AO persumptive, refiled Aug 09 for Service Connection.VSO recomended a new claim instead of reopening old claim, I am working with VSO, but not really feeling as if he is on my side. No input from him, no advise,makes me sometimes feel like I am just trying to work the system.
Also have filed for Diabetes II Blood Glucose has been as high as 252 fasting and have med records back to heart attack with readingof104 to 240 fasting. Cardioligst sent letter stating Diabetes controlled with diet.
Also claim for PTSD , typical problems as most, rage, anger, 3 marriages, 12 jobs in 40 years, nightmares, workplace violence( smacked dude who called me a bi**ch and meant it. 30 days off and anger management.),mood instability,low frustration tolerance, self-destructive behavior, intermittent explosive disorder and PTSD per Psychologist in 1996, darn sure doesn't make me sound good . I do have stressor medaL, Air Medal with V Device, MOS was 67A1F.
Service connected 0% for foot problems.
Denied for Tinnius and bi-latteral hearing loss, denial reason, loss due to being a diesel mechanic and truck driver,
I guess what I am asking is can you change VSO's in the middle of a claim, or ride it out.
Thanks for the chance to vent, but sometimes battle is so fricking hard.
I did a cut and paste from the NVLSP.org website for a veteran like yourself who has previously filed for heart disease. Quote below:
"If you are a Vietnam veteran who suffers (or a survivor of a veteran who died) from one of the three diseases and you did previously file a VA disability or death compensation claim for the disease: We advise you to take two steps:
(1) Immediately file with the VA another claim for service-connected disability compensation (or DIC) for the disease. This will help protect you from the possibility that the VA will interpret your previous claim as a pension claim instead of a compensation claim, or as being for a disease other than one of the three new diseases;
(2) Send email us at agentorange@nvlsp.org and provide the the following information:your full name; <LI>your current address;<LI>your current phone number;<LI>if you are a surviving family member, the full name of the deceased veteran; <LI>your VA claims file number; <LI>the approximate year in which you first filed a disability or DIC claim for Ischemic heart disease, Parkinson’s disease, or a B cell leukemia; <LI>identify which of the three diseases was the subject of the claim."
As for changing VSO's it could only slow things down but if you feel he's not doing right by you, there are lots out there. Good luck!
-
Until it is put on the Federal Registry it isn't presumtive. But you should file now.
-
As long as your type of heart disease is ischemic in nature -you can claim it due to AO exposure.
Most heart disease is ischemic but this is something your medical records will clarify.
Hopefully when the VA puts this proposed rule into the Federal Register they will define what they conisder ischemic heart disease.
I think it will be rated same as atherosclerotic heart disease but cannot predict how VA will handle this new AO presumptive.
Both Hodgkins and Non Hodgkins are AO presumptive disabilities-have you cl;aimed them?
I can't say for sure but this opens a lot of things up. What about people that have multiple types of this heart disease and the effect each one has on the other. Each disease may be benign in of itself but in combination can be deadly. This is a toughy and I can only see the backlog of cases go much higher.
-
Van the Secretary has recently added Parkinson's to the AO presumptives along with Ischemic heart disease and also Hairy Cell B Leukemia.
The regulations have not appeared yet at the Fed Register site- but I will check again- tody- they will be open there for puiclic comment for about 2 months and then the 38 CFR, 38 USC and M21-1 regs will be in stone.
Veterans wrth these condtions should file their claims-their claims will be in a temporary stay proceeding but there is no reason to wait to file the claim.
The VA is supposed to be contacting any vet with prior denial for these conditions and woth proven exposure to AO.
I dont think any vet should depend on that if they were denied in the past-the VA cannot even do current AO claims right-
Every veteran who was denied for any of these new presumptives in a past VA decision needs to pull out that past decision as- I am assuming they must fall under the Nehmer Class Action lawsuit and that earlier denial could get them a very favorable EED in most cases.This applies to many widows DIC claims as well
I wonder if VA is contacting them but I doubt it.
I will use my own example- verified by NVLSP.
Filed DIC claim 1995 within one year of my husband's death-
Re opened n 2003-he was awarded direct AO death April 2009.
My retroactive DIC date is in 1994.
Nehmer applies at AL, CLL and all other AO presumptive disabilities.
Yes mam he has. I have written to him and others about adding Guam veterans as presumptive for Parkinsons and all related disease. I've detailed in other posts about the amount of disease in veterans and the people of Guam(at one time 1 in 4 had the disease, ALS/PDC that is lou gehrigs with Parkinsons or it can be an either or situation on Guam) But it most definetly should be presumptive. They wrote back they are watching the situation there. I've got another letter and cd to go to these people, Sec Shinseki, Cong. Filner, VAC, Senator Reid and others.
I also believe neurodegenerative disease should be presumptive for all military personnel. ALS is just the first step. And Parkinsons in AO vets is the second step. It will ultimately expand in my opinion. It is at epidemic rates in military personnel from my point of view. It's all about the contamination(pesticides are a major contributor) and the needle sticks in my opinion.
-
VA Secretary Establishes ALS as a Presumptive Compensable Illness
September 23, 2008
(Printable Version)
Cites Association between Military Service and Later Development of ALS
WASHINGTON – Veterans with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) may receive badly-needed support for themselves and their families after the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced today that ALS will become a presumptively compensable illness for all veterans with 90 days or more of continuously active service in the military.
"Veterans are developing ALS in rates higher than the general population, and it was appropriate to take action," Secretary of Veterans Affairs Dr. James B. Peake said.
Secretary Peake based his decision primarily on a November 2006 report by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine (IOM) on the association between active-duty service and ALS.
"We are extremely grateful to Secretary Peake, Congressman Henry Brown and Senator Lindsey Graham for standing on the side of veterans with ALS across the country," said Gary Leo, president and CEO of The ALS Association. "Thanks to their leadership, veterans with ALS will receive the benefits and care they need, when they need them. Thanks to their efforts, no veteran with ALS will ever be left behind."
The report, titled Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis in Veterans: Review of the Scientific Literature, analyzed numerous previous studies on the issue and concluded that "there is limited and suggestive evidence of an association between military service and later development of ALS."
"ALS is a disease that progresses rapidly, once it is diagnosed," the Secretary explained. "There simply isn't time to develop the evidence needed to support compensation claims before many veterans become seriously ill. My decision will make those claims much easier to process, and for them and their families to receive the compensation they have earned through their service to our nation."
ALS, also called Lou Gehrig's disease, is a neuromuscular disease that affects about 20,000 to 30,000 people of all races and ethnicities in the United States, is often relentlessly progressive, and is almost always fatal.
ALS causes degeneration of nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that leads to muscle weakness, muscle atrophy, and spontaneous muscle activity. Currently, the cause of ALS is unknown, and there is no effective treatment.
The new interim final regulation applies to all applications for benefits received by VA on or after September 23, 2008, or that are pending before VA, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, or the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on that date.
VA will work to identify and contact veterans with ALS, including those whose claims for ALS were previously denied, through direct mailings and other outreach programs.
To view the entire regulation published in the Federal Register today, go to: www.federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2008-21998_PI.pdf. For more information on VA's disability compensation program, go to www.va.gov or contact 1-800-827-1000.
It's about time. This doesn't go far enough though in my opinion. Parkinsons should be as well. There are over 40,000 cases of this disease and it's associates currently in veterans. I know there are possibly over 20,000 cases that weren't in this tally just from the Guam area. I believe they're all dead by now. They were mostly WWII vets or vets who did service on Guam after the war. There are a number of these cases at the BVA and all were held up for a study that was conducted here in Reno. None were decided for the veteran and the study which was started about 17 years ago isn't complete even to this day.
-
I got a look a while back at other legislation that may be in the works surrounding this issue of AO and SC for all vets exposed. I support HR2254 and Sen Gillibrands legislation.
Back to the followup legislation. It's real bad and throws AO vets, exposed outside of Viet Nam, under the DoD bus. It puts us at the mercy of the arbitrary DoD list of places where there was use in testing and experimentation and that list is incomplete. They will reject all claims of exposure by way of base use, storage and disposal. It will bring us back to square one, direct basis with years of arguing with DVA.
I commented about and have seen nothing further about it
-
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/12/04/...99871259950043/
with her background could this be a smoking gun?
This is a constant with our government. I ran into this in my research on Guam and neurodegenerative disease, ALS/PDC. Somehow all are american sponsored scientist dismissed the contamination on Guam out of hand, no study, nothing. They did a number of dodge studies(studies that are meant to muddy the waters or use up resources or take science in the wrong direction). I believe Guam would have shown the modern day genesis of these types of diseases. All's we had to do is a viable study of the severe contamination on Guam, in particular the massive use of pesticides.
We now know that you never mix the pesticides, insecticides and herbicides, because if you do you get a much more toxic substance, the synergistic effect. This was done on Guam with DDT, Dieldrin, Agent White and sodium arsenite. I'm sure there are others that were used as well.(Using pesticides in this manner was a constant until about 1965. At least that is when I see acknowledgement of the synergistic effect of these pesticides. This happened all over, including Viet Nam) There is strong evidence to a link between pesticides and these types of diseases.
There are many of these dodge studies surrounding Guam and one was done here in Reno at the VAMC. The study was to be done of the cycad plant. This has been studied to death, but somehow still has legs even though the science shows never happened. But here in Reno it was useful in one manner. The DVA sent out letters in about 1992 to veterans who did service on this island and the immediate area, between about 1944 and 1955 and had these diseases, but I believe all did some sort of service on Guam. 18,000 letters were sent out to sick veterans, over 12,000 responded.
The only commonality here is the extreme contamination. Dengue fever was a huge problem, maybe as many as 80% of the troops caught it during the battle of Guam. The answer was to spray the insects that carried the disease. Enter DDT. It solved the problem but the entire island had to be sprayed every day for months. And there had to be frequent application thereafter.
At the same time they built the infrastucture of Guam. Ten military bases and the entire road system and any other vegetation control. Roads, towns beaches, so on and so forth.
Then you have the ravages of war and all that goes with in the taking of Guam. Explosives, napalm, voc's, so on and so forth.
Then you have the nuclear weapons testing and the fact that Guam was a part of the radiation zone, the island was used to decontaminate ships from the weapons testing and it was used as a storage facility for the munitions and equipment that was contaminated during the testing.
All of this was missed and much more by our scientist, those government paid lackeys.
I would like to add that cases of the disease ALS/PDC of Guam have been found in veterans as late as the early 70's and won at the BVA.
-
Bingo:
we might need this case. The BVA is not opining here as solely specific to the veteran. They have made a statement of medical fact.
“The next question under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309© is whether or not the appellant has ischemic heart disease. While the appellant has had a long history of problems with hypertension and hypertensive cardiovascular disease, more recent evidence shows that he also has coronary artery disease and arteriosclerotic heart disease. As noted above, coronary artery disease and arteriosclerotic heart disease are synonymous with ischemic heart disease. In other words, for VA purposes, there is current medical evidence showing that the appellant has a diagnosis of ischemic heart disease.” “Given the fulfillment of the two primary criteria (the presence of in-service edema and a post-service diagnosis of ischemic heart disease) in this case, the facts are sufficient to support a grant of service connection for ischemic heart disease as being the result of the appellant's POW experience under the presumptive provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.309©. ORDER Service connection for ischemic heart disease is granted. “ from: http://www4.va.gov/vetapp00/files2/0017299.txt THIS statement IS EXACTLY WHAT I PREDICT WE ARE UP AGAINST: “The RO denied the appellant's claim primarily on the strength of a negative opinion furnished by a fee basis physician in August 1997. However, the record clearly shows that the physician was not aware that for VA purposes arteriosclerotic heart disease and coronary artery disease are considered to be ischemic heart disease. See VBA Circular 21-97-1. The physician's opinion that there is no relationship between the appellant's ischemic heart disease, diagnosed as arteriosclerotic heart disease and coronary artery disease, and his localized edema as a POW is in opposition to the relationship established by legal presumption. Where, as in this case, there was localized edema during captivity and ischemic heart disease is subsequently identified, presumptive service connection for ischemic heart disease is warranted.”
from same case above and referenced to VBA circular 21-97-1 -which I need to find at the VA web site--------
A C & P doctor didnt know the relationship of the veteran CAD to his IHD evident by the POW's edema, beri beri and other captivity caused disabilities.
This is case of a POW
And shows how incompetent those C & P docs can be.
IHD is the presumptive for POWs and the doc knew it.
I read stuff life this and I just want to SCREAM when I see this stuff because this is either incompetence or deliberate way for VA to save money.Otr both.
This is pretty simple Berta. I look at it this way. You remember those experiments with monkeys and rats. They put these animals in cages with treats in their view and if they push the right button they get the treat. I've found this to be true throughout DVA. Consultants, general counsel, BVA judges, ratings people, adjudicators, VARO heads, it doesn't seem to matter.
The same principle is true at the NIH, NAS,IOM and others. It's about the payoff.
It's willful ignorance at it's worse and it's right up there with the dodge studies. Dodge studies are those that are meant to direct the science away from the truth. This slows the process and eats up those funds that are meant for viable studies or for a false truth,"see the study shows dioxin isn't harmful". "See the study shows radiation isn't harmful". "Our doctor has determined your illness isn't related to service". The only way to get the treat is to come up with the right answer. They're all trained monkey's and rat's and a few others I might add.
-
Actually 6 cases have been won for AO exposure and Guam. A case was just recently won at the AMC, it isn't posted yet. Two cases are posted on Bluewater, one is same as the post here, one case was won in Kentucky but vet didn't want to post, and 2 cases were won since April. These cases that have been won are 2 at BVA and 4 at the RO. Three different bases have been implicated and cases have been won for both navy and airforce persons. A number of cases are being turned over to lawyers that think they will win.
The evidence is there for exposure by way of the sole-source drinking water aquifer and base use, storage and disposal. When filing a claim make sure you're clear as to how you were exposed, the drinking water and base use, storage and disposal.
-
I was surprised Colonel Dan sent me this the other day-I think I sent him this news when the vet won.
Other vets who served outside of Vietnam and Korea within the Korea AO dates have succeeded on AO claims.
I posted a link to these decisions here some time ago-
There may even be more by now at the AO web site.
The Alaska vet who proved AO disability-I think that was a AMC award on remand from the BVA.It might not be public knowledge yet at the BVA.
If a veteran-such as Kurt Priessman -(who proved AO exposure in Thailand -and also was instrumental in the new procedure for certain Thailand vets- posted here Wednesday-
can prove he or she was directly excposed to AO no matter where-and has an AO presumptive disability -they will succeed in their claim.
NOT easy- but it can be done as the BVA awards have revealed.
-
If agent orange was used at Ft. Lewis, WA in what years was it used there? I can't find anything
with the years that it was there.
Thanks for any replies
Ken1
Do a search for "Fort Lewis CERCLA Rods" that should get you started.
New Directive For Ao Vets
in Agent Orange
Posted
Van here and it isn't downloading the entire piece. Only the title.
But to opine on this, JSRRC doesn't have most of these types of records. If you're claiming exposure outside of Viet Nam and claiming you were exposed by way of the base use, storage and disposal there won't be any record. These records aren't archived and only kept about 2 years.
As for the VARO's asking over and over for these records I doubt it. But again this shouldn't go against you, the lack of records. When they say there's no record that is true but these types of records never existed for the purposes of law. They had been destroyed, at least in most if not all cases. Lack of records is just that, not pro and not con.
I'll take a look on the internet and see if I can find a copy of the bulletin.
I've always thought the JRSSC was nothing other than a dodge to deny because the DVA already knew the answer, that is in the case of base use. Base use records don't exist.