Jump to content

Berta

HadIt.com Elder
  • Content Count

    28,263
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    371

Berta last won the day on September 11

Berta had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,454 Excellent

About Berta

  • Rank
    HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

Profile Information

  • Military Rank
    PLEASE post questions in the main Forums
  • Location
    Beautiful hills of NY andwidow of  2 vets, 2 HD each and mother of USAF vet-my daughter, 7 years Top Secret Intel
  • Interests
    tactical warfare student- AMU
    gardening
    fishing
    Oriental home design
    organic cleaning tips
    Capt Adoph Von Shell-interested in any info at all!
    German Commander (WWI)lectured to the US Army after the war on warfare-- PTSD - tactics etc-and Leadership
    The Pullers-Chesty and Lewis (USMC)
    chocolate brownies
    anything at all regarding Vietnam
    the failure of the Maginot Line (WWII)
    Trench warfare
    anything amphibious

    Led Zepplin, Bob Dylan, Sting, Al Green, Mozart, Classical guitar,Moog synthesizer, Eminem,Janis Joplin,
    Michael Jackson, Teddy Pendergast, Mongo Santamaria,
    Cal Tjader, Miles Davis, AmerIndian battle chants,
    Hendrix,etc etc etc
    Pho and nuc mam dinners

Recent Profile Visitors

32,801 profile views
  1. I read the letter from DOD - did you actually get a separate letter from DOD, sent to you, stating you were exposed to chemical agents in Khamisiyah,Iraq and you were there at that time? March 1991. The letter you posted starts out this way: "WASHINGTON, July 27, 2005 – The Defense Department is again sending letters to thousands of Gulf War veterans exposed to low levels of chemical agents contained in munitions destroyed at a weapons depot in Khamisiyah, Iraq, in March 1991." The Buddy letter, did they state they were in the same unit, same time and place where you served? Did they state their eye witness account of what chemicals you were exposed to? Did they give VA their full contact info,? as VA does often contact Buddys. I hope you can find a good doctor who will prepare an IMO for you, as that can often take some time.
  2. Hope this comes through before I lose power: "ORDER Entitlement to service connection for lung cancer due to Agent Orange exposure is granted. Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer due to Agent Orange exposure is granted. Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction (ED), secondary to prostate cancer on a causation basis, is granted." In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit has stated that Veterans are entitled to 38 U.S.C. § 1116 presumptions if they served within the 12 nautical miles of the Republic of Vietnam. Procopio v. Wilkie, 913 F.3d 1371, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Congress has spoken directly to the question of whether those who served in the 12 nautical mile territorial sea of the ‘Republic of Vietnam’ are entitled to § 1116’s presumption if they meet the section’s other requirements. They are”). Based on the above evidence, the Board finds that the Veteran served in Vietnam as that term was defined by the Federal Circuit in Procopio, specifically, within the 12 nautical mile territorial sea of the ‘Republic of Vietnam’ VA’s General Counsel has indicated that some cases before the Board that were affected by the Procopio stay may be capable of immediate decision, for example if the evidence indicates that the Veteran served on board a ship that went within the 12 nautical mile territorial sea of Vietnam. General Counsel Advisory Opinion, VAOPGADVIS 1-19 (Mar. 29, 2019). For the above reasons, this is such case. See also 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(c) (“The development of evidence in connection with claims for service connection will be accomplished when deemed necessary but it should not be undertaken when evidence present is sufficient for this determination”). As the Veteran has current lung cancer and prostate cancer and he is presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam, service connection for lung cancer and prostate cancer is warranted on a presumptive basis." https://www.va.gov/vetapp19/files4/19132156.txt I will find that Prec Op from OGC, they only have one other Pres Op for 2019 at their site-not related to AO and maybe that would speed up your claim ( and mine) The stay is what many vet orgs sued wilkie over to include BWNVVA. Mybe the BVA could give me a copy.
  3. I am having PC trouble due to the weather- (satellite dish modem) This case also covers HBP due to AO and th BVA mentions the same NAS ( NAP ) report I gave you a link to the other day------ https://www.va.gov/vetapp19/files5/19137213.txt The BVA used page 465, I used page 8 0r page 10 of the same report from the National Academy Report I posted a link to here before. I will try later to post the BVA excerpts in a text format-----I hope we dont lose electric power as we did yesterday- high wind and storms.
  4. The first decision is a remand based on Procopio but the second one was a winner! On August 16, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered the appeal of Procopio v. Wilkie, No. 17-1821 (U.S. Fed. Cir.). The order stated that the questions before the Federal Circuit include the following: “Does the phrase ‘served in the Republic of Vietnam’ in 38 U.S.C. § 1116 unambiguously include service in offshore waters within the legally recognized territorial limits of the Republic of Vietnam, regardless of whether such service included presence on or within the landmass of the Republic of Vietnam?” Consequently, a stay was placed on all the adjudication of all appeals for compensation based on alleged exposure to Herbicide Agents in the Offshore Waterways of the Republic of Vietnam. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an en banc precedential decision in Procopio v. Wilkie (17-1821), which reversed the Court’s holding in Haas v. Peak, 525 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2008), and the stay on affected appeals was lifted. In reversing the Court’s holding, the Federal Circuit found that “veterans who served in the 12-nautical mile territorial sea of the Republic of Vietnam meet the criterion of 38 U.S.C. § 1116(f) that they “served in the Republic of Vietnam,” regardless of whether they had duty or visitation on the ground or in the inland waters of Vietnam.” WhOn August 16, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered the appeal of Procopio v. Wilkie, No. 17-1821 (U.S. Fed. Cir.). The order stated that the questions before the Federal Circuit include the following: “Does the phrase ‘served in the Republic of Vietnam’ in 38 U.S.C. § 1116 unambiguously include service in offshore waters within the legally recognized territorial limits of the Republic of Vietnam, regardless of whether such service included presence on or within the landmass of the Republic of Vietnam?” Consequently, a stay was placed on all the adjudication of all appeals for compensation based on alleged exposure to Herbicide Agents in the Offshore Waterways of the Republic of Vietnam. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an en banc precedential decision in Procopio v. Wilkie (17-1821), which reversed the Court’s holding in Haas v. Peak, 525 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2008), and the stay on affected appeals was lifted. In reversing the Court’s holding, the Federal Circuit found that “veterans who served in the 12-nautical mile territorial sea of the Republic of Vietnam meet the criterion of 38 U.S.C. § 1116(f) that they “served in the Republic of Vietnam,” regardless of whether they had duty or visitation on the ground or in the inland waters of Vietnam.” While the Board acknowledges that the Veteran submitted an October 2018 Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP) opt-in election form, the appeal had already been activated at the Board and is therefore no longer eligible for the RAMP program. Accordingly, the Board will undertake appellate review of the case. ile the Board acknowledges that the Veteran submitted an October 2018 Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMWhether it is as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's hypertension is caused by the service-connected diabetes mellitus type II and/or coronary artery disease. If the answer to (a) is negative, whether it is as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's hypertension is aggravated (permanently worsened beyond natural progression) by the service-connected diabetes mellitus type II and/or coronary artery disease. If the examiner finds that diabetes mellitus, type II, and/or coronary artery disease aggravates the hypertension, the examiner is asked to state whether there is medical evidence created prior to the aggravation or at any time between the time of aggravation and the current level of disability that shows a baseline for hypertension prior to aggravation. If the examiner is unable to establish a baseline for the hypertension prior to the aggravation, he or she should state such and explain why a baseline cannot be determined. Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's hypertension is related to his active service, including his presumed exposure to herbicides in Vietnam. Consider and discuss NAS’s Update 2018, which reflects that NAS has placed hypertension in the category of “sufficient,” indicating that “there is enough epidemiologic evidence to conclude that there is a positive association” between hypertension and herbicide exposure. See Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 11 (2018) https://www.nap.edu/read/25137/chapter/1 (page 465) (last accessed February 11, 2019). P) opt-in election form, the appeal had already been activated at the Board and is therefore no longer eligible for the RAMP program. Accordingly, the Board will undertake appellate review of the case.
  5. That is an interesting take on Procopio that I need to find other info on.I believe we discussed here in early 2019 whether this had the same retro affects as a potential success for HR 299, which seemed for years to go no where.(But we won!!!!!!!- I am a member of the BWNVVA) This is NVLSP's Statement on Procopio dated Feb 2019 and their advice on filing those claims based on Procipio ( which of course was before HR 299 became law- https://www.nvlsp.org/news-and-events/news-articles/advice-for-blue-water-vietnam-veterans-about-procopio-v-wilkie-decision Their link for the case does not work but it is here: "CONCLUSION Congress has spoken directly to the question of whether those who served in the 12 nautical mile territorial sea of the “Republic of Vietnam” are entitled to § 1116’s presumption if they meet the section’s other requirements. They are. Because “the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter.” Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842. Mr. Procopio is entitled to a presumption of service connection for his prostate cancer and diabetes mellitus. Accordingly, we reverse. REVERSED AND REMANDED" page 19 0f 50- the full decision: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1821.Opinion.1-29-2019.pdf If you feel you should file a CUE based on Procopio, that would depend on, in my opinion, the date of and the aspects of the last denial you got for your disability. I don't think you would need to file CUE, but to send to the VA what NVLSP advises to send-in their article above ( but I will check their site for more recent Procopio info) Also there are 269 BVA decisions that popped up after the Procopio decision came out- and it seems many are are remand due to the Court case. I will read them all, and try to find more info on how vets are using this case to prove their AO claims....it will take me time............my thrill over HR 299 and the time it took a handful of advocates ( many who had no dog in the fight at all,to include of BWNVVA president John Rossie), still makes it the prime decision I have focused on. much more than Procopio---- Actually the VA should call CUE on themselves for any BWN AO vet who falls under Procopio and HR299 and Nehmer. But unlike their attempts re: the AO IHD,Hairy Cell B, Parkinsons ,to fin affected vets or their survivors ,VA has said they will not attempt to do that this time around.
  6. There might be someone who could help here, depending on a search for the state you live in: https://www.imenet.com/content/imedir.pdf Or just by googling dermatologists in you’re a state might help- I say -in your state- because they would possibly want to do a full medical exam for their opinion. They willl need to have your SMRS and VA medical records, and they will need to follow the IMO/IME criteria here at hadit in that specific forum. Also by doing a search at the BVA you might find a claim similar to yours that mentions a dermatologist in your state: https://www.bva.va.gov/ Often the BVA will only put a IMO doctor’s initials but that can narrow down the search ,in your state.The BVA does not put any state identifying info as to RO etc in their decisions, but past decisions still hold that info. This recent BVA decisions holds the current ratings for this disability: Unfortunately the veteran ( who received a “0” SC for hives ( better than a “0” NSC rating, did not fall into a rating higher than 10% SC , even considering that the revised regulations for this disability.The reason for the appeal.*** The VA changed the rating schedule , during the past 28 years…so this is something the IMO/IME doctor needs ( (it is available here at hadit, under a search for Skin disabilities ----revisions of rating schedule. *** Source :https://www.va.gov/vetapp18/files9/18133767.txt Your problem if the hives are at a ratable level is the nexus- it is possible that a good IMO/IME doctor will find more evidence than the single entry you mentioned here: "The judge found my testimony to be very credible and identified a treatment for dermatitis while I was in service" The phrase 'toxic soup 'or toxins in general is too vague for the VA. What toxins can you prove, with your inservice MOS, put you into exposure to those toxins and what specifically were the toxins? That is a question a good IMO/IME doctor would need an answer to.And so would the VA. You might need to consider getting a buddy statement too (info here available on Buddy states) and just about every Mil Unit has a web site, and many have reunion rosters or email for their members. You have a lot to do, in a limited amount of time, but Nothing is impossible. Also we have had vets here with skin diseases they were SCed for.Hopefully they will chime in.
  7. Hello Berta.  I was seeking you knowledge and advice on my current claim.  I conducted a video conference with a law judge on October 11th, 2019.  I am seeking a claim for chronic idiopathic urticaria(hives) that I've been battling for close to 28 years.  I conducted (2) Persian Gulf War clinical studies and evaluations at Walter Reed back in the early 90's.  The file acknowledges that I have this chronic illness but I lack a nexus letter or imo.  The judge found my testimony to be very credible and identified a treatment for dermatitis while I was in service.  I also sought medical treatment on the private side, Dermatologist, immunologist, and internist,  with the same chronic idiopathic classification.  I am looking to associate my illness to the toxic exposures and/or the initial dermatitis diagnosis that I received while in Iraq, Saudia Arabia and Kuwait. I've been given 90 days to get a imo/nexus letter from a dermatologist.  Essentially my question is do you know of a regional resource that would identify a good starting point for locating a Dermatologist who could assist with such a letter?  Any other points of advice?  Could medical hypothesis's be helpful?   

    1. Tbird

      Tbird

      @Shawn8955 Please post this question on the forums.

    2. Shawn8955

      Shawn8955

      I posted it in gulf war illness forum.

       

      Thank you

  8. If this malpractice from Dr Ho pre dated the ERCP, I think you could file a FTCA case, in addition to your 1151 issue. I sure did both and won under both-FTCA requires when a claimant became aware of the malpractice and filed within the Statute of Limits ( as determined by where the malpractice occurred). But in any event , now you have answers on the unexplained bleeding-I am so glad you followed this up with the BVA. My husband, dead 25 years ago this past Monday, should be here with us helping vets, as he did when the internet first began ( Vet Link NY 1988, Prodigy Vet BBS 1990, and I am still angry that malpractice continues to plague the VA. I have a google alert for VA malpractice and every week I get new stories of horrific VA events-like the serial killer at Johnson VA, and the devastating malpractice that occurred in Fayettesville AR about 1 1/2 years ago. But one problem with VA malpractice ( and even civilian medical malpractice, )is that often the victim never knows it happened and their life might be shortened by it, or they might die from it. It happens at VA often the same way our regular VA claims get denied- Either the ROs do not consider probative evidence that they have, or they are too lazy to read it. This is what happened to my husband----there was absolutely no follow up to a heart attack he had in 1988 that they considered to be a sinus infection. The very first thing I found, when I got his medical records, was the VA ER certificate ( he had collapsed while working at VA), I figured out the acronyms and stuff ( handwritten, hard to decifer) and then the very next med rec was a copy of his abnormal EKG they did as soon as he got to the ER. As I read through those records, it was obvious that the multiple doctors involved, never really looked over what was a small amount of medical records at that time, 1988, ....all indicating they, like our ROs, ignored probative medical evidence and then failed to diagnose and treat him properly.Those VA records became a stack over the next 6 years, revealing many times the VA could have properly diagnosed and treated him, but they didn't and the malpractice grew to other disabilities as well as the heart disease. I am hoping and praying for you Steve, that all this will finally turn around for you. The very system that you men and women created by your service is lacking in providing the best medical care every veteran should get. I think it will even get worse, as those contracted "providers" that are filling medical positions at VAMCs all over the country, are not covered by FTCA....but apparently bu 1151. Section 1151 claims that succeed have no accountability whatsoever to provide to the public how much 1151 malpractice actually costs the taxpayer. If I can get my Bill introduced in the H VAC, and if they amend Title 38 exactly as I requested, maybe some of their malpractice will stop.
  9. There was a hearing Wednesday on the liver research - more and more is coming to light about this travesty. This can be added to your 1151 issue- I dont know if the Wednesday Congressional hearing is on line yet- and I dont know if the VA made any attempt to contact affected veterans-and they probably won't ...... hopefully I will get a copy of the report they say is coming from the Independent Special Council-and will post a link to it here. This is an Outrage! I feel the VA certainly committed malpractice on you with the ERCP situation but what Dr Ho did to you compounded your whole situation. This might well fit into the FTCA criteria,because you only became aware of this recently, or could be claimed in addition to the 1151 errors they already made in your case. You might want to contact Rep. Scott Peters, D-San Diego, and maybe he could release the report to you when it is published. "Leadership from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs answered questions at a congressional hearing Wednesday about inewsource’s investigation into dangerous liver research conducted at the San Diego VA and poor oversight of the VA healthcare system." https://inewsource.org/2019/10/16/congress-va-veterans-hearing-san-diego-study/ I feel you definitely should raise this issue with VA, Steve, because you were a victim of it.
  10. Gee-I forgot-I will be gone tomorrow- most of the day- here it is: https://vetsbenefits.net/va-fast-letter-10-35-hearing-t99876.html#.VfLYlZdLzV8 It is from YUKU VBN and all of the other links here to it seem to be broken. I am sure the MOS list is there under that link as well. It would help if we can see the Hearing loss decision. VA makes many errors in Hearing loss claims.
  11. PS -If you can post the Hearing loss denial, there are many here who could help with that. You might need VA Fast Letter 10-35 and also the MOS list. If no one posts it, I will tomorrow-
  12. That form might not be a bad idea----in any event can you scan and attach here the last decision on the prostate cancer, and it's date? Cover your C file # and name,address prior to scanning it. "Most all decisions on my Prostate Cancer claim were things I submitted in 2010 and the new blue water law was all things denied. They said The required service in Vietnam is not shown nor is there evidence of exposure to herbicides during military service." The Blue Water NAvy AO law was signed in June 2019 by the President but we are still waiting for Secretary Wilkie to lift the Moratorium on Blue Water Navy claims. Many Vet orgs have sued him on that.Also we do not have the actual regulations yet on this law, but a lot could happen with the form and the 11B Submissions you should make. You stated: "I do not feel we should have gone that way. It will take too long for a decision. I believe another supplemental claim with new evidence would have been a better way." Maybe but I hope you realise that Everything takes too long with the VA.My AO IHD death claim filed in 2010 took until 2012 to be awarded -that was the fastest claim I think I ever got awarded , except for some CUEs I filed that took only weeks to change denial into an award- I can look over the scanned decision and see if there is a CUE in it-but there might not be a CUE ( Clear and Unmistakable Error) because we do not have the AO BWN regulations yet. Still it is worth looking over the decision. On the HBP I have just filed a AO Death and accrued HBP claim- you might want to follow the claim I filed, as an example, as to what would pertain to you as this is an accrued claim, I am a widow, not a veteran: It is here: https://community.hadit.com/topic/75251-hbp-awarded-due-to-ao/ Sec Wilkie may or may not add HBP to the AO presumptives, but it pays to file the claim anyhow using the evidence I used from the NAP report. If the VA ever rated your HBP as NSC with a rating percentage, in any past decision that can become quite important if they award your HBP claim due to the exposure you can prove with your deck logs.
  13. Yeah I read that long report that you had posted here-and felt it did not help you one bit---but still maybe it will help on remand. Steve, that documented statement you just posted is GOLDEN!!!!! They based it on your VA Medical records. I am sure you blocked out the doctor's name- etc and their credentials--- It would not hurt to mention the scandal at San Diego- when you submit this IMO. By all means , get this to the BVA and to the RO as well via the woman you deal with here: "She is my BVA specialist service officer. She only does bva appeals. She has a direct line to submit docs to the bva judge. I don't know how it works, but it gets there directly to the correct office." That is GREAT!!!!!! I always focused on the 1151,as I saw it as the strongest claim but then again the remand might develop the additional claims you filed, that could garner an award, as well. I feel encouraged that you are Finally getting somewhere with this. And I know how miserable it has been for you to deal with your disabilities and with the VA. But as many of us know- persistence pays off. VA isn't our enemy (seems like it though)- Time is the enemy of any VA claimant.
  14. This appears to be your Remand from the BVA- please let us know if it is not your remand: In part: “The post July 1999 records include records from January 2008 showing that he persisted with intermittent abdominal pain along with alternating constipation and diarrhea and abdominal CT done in February 2008 was notable for a pancreatic mass, questionable pseudocyst. See 73 pages VA records from 1998-2008 at pages 32, 35. The records indicate that he later underwent surgery at the VA in March 2008 to remove and biopsy the cyst with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) done, but with complications of a leak into the abdomen resulting in 2 lengthy hospitalizations from March to April and April to May of 2008. Subsequently, he required hospitalization at a private hospital (Kaiser) in June and July of 2008 for hypotension, with findings of necrotizing pancreatitis as well as new onset portal vein thrombosis with additional splenic vein thrombosis. See Kaiser records 75 pages incl summer 2008 tx at pgs 18-22, 69, 72. He persisted with the diagnosis of chronic necrotizing pancreatitis in VA treatment records from August 2008. See 73 pg VA records received 6/29/10, at pg 12. This chronic necrotizing pancreatitis was confirmed on CT in August 2009. See 75 pgs VA records 2009-2010 entered 12/22/10 at p 44. “ And: “Subsequent post July 1999 VA records from 2010 through 2014 continued to confirm the Veteran as having continued GI symptoms, with a diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis along with symptoms of persistent abdominal pain, with CT findings showing atrophic pancreas likely secondary to the chronic pancreatitis. See Id at page 37 (June 2010 record noting atrophic pancreas and partial splenic vein thrombosis on CT). See also 203 pages CAPRI in Virtual VA at p 189 (February 2011 abdominal CT scan showing the same findings) and page 15 (August 2013 record showing chronic abdominal pain with continued complaints of bloating and abdominal pain). He has continued with regular GI consults for his chronic pancreatitis and symptoms of persistent abdominal pain. See 310 page CAPRI in Virtual VA at pages 140-147, 249, 267 (October 2013, February 2014, and August 2014 GI consults for chronic pancreatitis). VA examinations conducted after the July 1999 rating include VA examinations from July 2010 and January 2015https://www.va.gov/vetapp16/files4/1627475.txt “ “Regarding the GI disorder as it relates to the 1151 claim, although the January 2015 examiner answered this question in the negative stating that the subsequent pancreatitis was noted to be a potential complication of the abdominal cyst surgery, the Board again points to these records not currently being associated with the claims file. The Board further notes that the Veteran's March 2016 testimony raises further questions regarding the 1151 claim that need further examination to properly address. Of note, the Veteran has now alleged that the pancreas condition should have been properly diagnosed by the VA earlier than it was, so that early treatment could have potentially avoided the surgery and subsequent complications. Additionally the Veteran indicated in his testimony that his surgical consent was limited only to the needle biopsy, not for the further procedures he subsequently underwent. 3/16 Travel Board Transcript pages 46-52, 55-60. Thus, additional examination of the Veteran's GI disorders should include consideration of these contentions made in his lay testimony and written statements in addition to the available evidence of record. Further, if the examiner does find that the Veteran has additional disability subject to an award under 1151, the examiner should specify the nature of each disability claimed as complications as the Veteran has set forth a litany of medical complaints alleged to have been caused by his complications from the 2008 pancreas surgery at the VA. Id at p 55. “ https://www.va.gov/vetapp16/files4/1627475.txt The remand order is quite long and extensive, regarding multiple issues in addition to the 1151 claim and points out some information that was not associated with the claims file. This is a key part regarding the 1151 claim: “However, the Board notes that the many volumes of VA and private records do not actually include reports of the actual surgeries forming the basis of his 1151 claim. Such procedures were said to have taken place at the San Diego VAMC in March 2008. See 310 pg VAMC in Virtual VA at p 52. This would include no actual records of the biopsy procedure of the pancreatic cyst or the ERCP resulting in complications of a leak into the abdomen or the subsequent lengthy hospitalizations from March to April and April to May of 2008. Additionally, the release form is not shown to be in the current records, although this as well as the surgical records were apparently available to the January 2015 VA examiner who addressed the 1151 claim. An effort must be made to obtain the VA records not already of record that are in the VA's constructive possession. See Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992).” Bell*** I read that over three or four times-------this is key evidence, which the BVA considered that the examiner had, in January 2015 but somehow maybe the VA’s MF showed up ( MF Mysterious force who removes info from C files and then replaces that when the claim is denied) I know the MF well- this has been the cause of numerous denials I received over the past 20 plus years dealing with them personally. When I knew what had been withheld from the VA examiners and the OGC, I was able to send it to them and win those claims. Bell V Derwinski- BVA citation Bell is summarized here: “Our jurisdiction is limited to "the record of proceedings before the Secretary and the Board." 38 U.S.C. § 7252(b). This limitation is implemented through Rule 10, which directs the parties to designate for inclusion in the record on appeal "all material in the record of proceedings before the Secretary and the Board that was relied upon by the Board in ruling against the appellant." U.S. VET. APP. R. 10(a). Actual reliance on the evidence by the Board is not strictly required. In Bell v. Derwinski, this Court held: [W]here the documents proffered by the appellant are within the Secretary's control and could reasonably be expected to be a part of the record "before the Secretary and the Board," such documents are, in contemplation of law, before the Secretary and the Board and should be included in the record. If such material could be determinative of the claim and was not considered by the Board, a remand for readjudication would be in order. 2 Vet.App. 611, 613 (1992).” Many CUE claims are awarded on the principles of Bell. Or, as above, garnered a BVA Remand. https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/Urquhart_04-1559.pdf Have you been able to find that information yourself, in order to send it to the RO and to the BVA? This is a key point the BVA made in the Remand.
  15. ". I get an IMO letter written out on VA GI Clinic Letterhead Stating in legal for as an IMO that my Necrotizing Pancreatitis complications are 'More Likely than Not' caused by the procedures at the VA." You had one of the best 1151 situations I ever saw. Sometime around March 2009- or maybe in 2010 I wrote a Section 1151 claim for you and posted it here. I gave you links to the fact that the ERCP had caused additional disability ( and many malpractice cases ) in many veterans as well as civilians because doctors were doing the procedure wrong, for you to download and print out , to send with the claim, as they bolstered the 1151 claim. Sometime in 2009 as well I also suggested using the SOC you had received because it was an admissions of the fact that the VA had caused the necrotizing pancreatitis. I could hardly believe it-but they still denied. Also I suggested to obtain an IMO/IME from a real doctor, fully versed in this type of disability. The IMO you obtained regarding the fuels etc you were exposed to, gave no medical statement at all regarding any disability you go from JP4 etc exposure because the expert who wrote it was not a medical doctor nor knew whattype of IMO you were actually seeking on the pancreatitis. In 2011 I answered this hadit post from you : http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/48047-today-my-gi-doctor-blamed-teh-va-for-my-necrotizing-pancreatits/ Of course he did- it was obvious that the VA caused the necrotizing pancreatitis. AND I added "Posted 01 April 2011 - 02:29 PM I forgot to add to my post “Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) remains the most common cause of iatrogenic pancreatitis [1]. Studies have shown post-ERCP complications were responsible for greater than 65 percent of malpractice claims [2, 3]. “ http://americanmedic...ctice-case.html http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/43149-depression-questions/ http://americanmedic...ctice-case.html To add -the term “Iatrogenic”means caused by a doctor or medical procedure." I also added in 2011 that a good lawyer would see the evidence of malpractice right away----- I suggest that you go over the older posts here as well as the 1151 claim I prepared for you with the citations I used, to see if there is anything the VA has overlooked. I have won 4 or 5 personal 1151 claims, a FTCA case, and got a Vietnam vet friend one of the best 1151 awards I have ever seen ) He has received 1151 100% P & T plus SMC for over 20 years)and I gave you expert advice on your issues, as to many other vets or their survivors here and elsewhere for over 2 decades. Unfortunately probably 50% or more of past 1151 questions here, did not involve what seemed to be a clear cur malpractice issue to me. Often the posters did not answer my questions and a few changed statements they had made,which did not help. I certainly advised them all to obtain a lawyer when the VA denied their claims. The most recent malpractice case I was involved in is here at hadit- the veteran's photo is of him in bed somewhere on the main page I think-I spent many hours trying to help him because his doctor was not a VA employee ( so OGC said) and they were not liable under FTCA. Unfortunately, in his case, I withdrew my support because I realised he lied to me about what the VA actually paid him.PLENTY!!!!! I had been under the impression from him and his many news outlet interviews, that he only got a little over 100 a month under 1151- that didnt make sense, and months after I contacted his lawyer I found out the truth. These are tough statements I am making because anyone trying to help anyone els with a 1151 claim needs to carefully understand what that entails. The 38 USC 1151 regs are very short and easy to understand and most often then not the veteran will need a strong IMO/IME. Most of us do not have the time or medical background enough to even consider reading a full VA medical record to determine if malpractice has occurred. I based my responses to you over the past 8 or 9 years based on what you told us, and the SOC itself. You need to make sure that your 1151 ( I think some vet rep wrote one for you too ???) complied to the points I had made in the original 1151 you had, that I posted at hadit. The evidence was excellent and this claim,- had you gotten an IMO/IME from a real doctor, could have been awarded long ago. It is not too late to get one. BUT the VA might consider the negative opinion , along with the favorable one, and awarded under Relative Equipoise. A big Might. As you stated: "I get an IMO letter written out on VA GI Clinic Letterhead Stating in legal for as an IMO that my Necrotizing Pancreatitis complications are 'More Likely than Not' caused by the procedures at the VA." I hope they gave a full medical rationale and when you send them (VA) that letter (if you are on remand I suggested sending it to the RO as well as the BVA and get a Proof of mailing, I suggest you go over my past dit posts to you, as they contain the information that will bolster the 1151 claim. Maybe the above excerpts would be enough. I have no time these days to really reply to 1151 questions, anymore , or even CUE questions, etc etc as much has happened for Blue Water Navy vets and AO and that has become my most important concern.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines