Jump to content


HadIt.com Elder
  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Berta

  1. https://community.hadit.com/topic/72696-retirees-crdpcrsc-info/ We have a fairly new member who is a retiree- when I searched for the info ,I could not find his post again. There is quite a bit of info here under a search for CRDP and CRSC. CRDP is supposed to be automatic but CRSC has to be formally applied for- I wonder how vets, who qualify for CRSC and dont use a PC ,even know about CRSC.... I wonder if all the vet reps out there know about it.......
  2. To update, I am asking Ranking Member Roe of the H VAC ,instead of my Congressman, to sponsor a Bill to amend both Title 38 USC, Section 1151 as well as Title 38, USC,Chapter 1, Part 4,, Title 38 USC, Section 1151 and Title 38 USC, 5701. S 221, which appears to have been developed due to my OAWB case, contains the wording "certain health care employees" and the Tally Bill ( HR 7105) also contains the word "certain"before "health care contractors"and both are wrong the word should be ALL, as thus: In part: "Section 1.Short Title: “This Act may be cited as the “Rodney F. Simmons VA Malpractice Accountability Act” Section 2. Accountability of General Counsel of the VA, District Counsels of the VA , all VA Regional Offices, and all VA health care practitioners to include all who are VA employees and to also include all practitioners from contracting firms, who provide VA health care, at VA facilities and who are not VA employees. To amend Title 38, United States Code, to ensure that all health care VA health care employees, and all contracted providers in the VA health care system ,are subject to the mandated agreement VA has with the National Practitioners Data Bank, referenced as Title 38, Chapter 1, Part 4," I have prepared 4 amendments - 2 under Title 38 USC 5701 ( under (c) 3 and (e) which applies to the public's right to know, under FOIA, the actual statistics involving VA malpractice .
  3. VA ensures Veterans have same-day access to emergency mental health care WASHINGTON — As part of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) efforts to provide the best mental health care access possible, VA is reminding Veterans that it offers all Veterans same-day access to emergency mental health care at any VA health care facility across the country. “Providing same-day 24/7 access to mental health crisis intervention and support for Veterans, service members and their families is our top clinical priority,” said VA Secretary Robert Wilkie. “It’s important that all Veterans, their family and friends know that help is easily available.” VA’s Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention is the national leader in making high-quality mental health care and suicide prevention resources available to Veterans through a full spectrum of outpatient, inpatient and telemental health services. Additionally, VA has developed the National Strategy for Preventing Veteran Suicide, which reflects the department’s vision for a coordinated effort to prevent suicide among all service members and Veterans. This strategy maintains VA’s focus on high-risk individuals in health care settings, while also adopting a broad public health approach to suicide prevention. VA has supported numerous Veterans and has the capacity to assist more. In fiscal year (FY) 2018, 1.7 million Veterans received Veterans Health Administration (VHA) mental health services. These patients received more than 84,000 psychiatric hospital stays, about 41,700 residential stays and more than 21 million outpatient encounters. Nationally, in the first quarter of FY 2019, 90% of new patients completed an appointment in a mental health clinic within 30 days of scheduling an appointment, and 96.8% of established patients completed a mental health appointment within 30 days of the day they requested. For FY 2018, 48% of initial, in-person Primary Care — Mental Health Integration (PC-MHI) encounters were on the same day as the patient’s PC encounter. During the first quarter of FY 2019, 51% of initial, in-person PC-MHI encounters were on the same day as the patient’s PC encounter. Veterans in crisis – or those concerned about one – should call the Veterans Crisis Line at 800-273-8255 and press 1, send a text message to 838255 or chat online at VeteransCrisisLine.net. https://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=5234 ( I wonder if those 3 suicides in 5 days, at VAMCs spurred this PR.)
  4. Three vets killed themselves at VAs within a five day period: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/veteran-suicides-three-veterans-die-by-suicide-at-veterans-affairs-facilities-within-five-days/ It is outrageous and getting worse
  5. It all depends on the facts of the claim. "ORDER Entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for damage to the colon (to include perforation of the bowel, the need for surgical resection of the large intestine / hemicolectomy, and associated deconditioning / weight loss) is granted. Entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for respiratory disability (recurrent pneumonia/empyema, the need for ventilator tracheostomy, and severe respiratory compromise with neuromuscular debilitation) is granted." The veterans was inadequately informed of the consent and the results of the procedure were not reasonably foreseeable. “As the Board concludes that the Veteran has shown that the procedure was furnished without the adequate informed consent contemplated by 38 C.F.R. § 3.361(d)(1)(ii) and 38 C.F.R. § 17.32(c), the Board must accordingly conclude that the fourth element of a successful § 1151 claim, i.e., whether the treatment provided by VA involved fault by VA or an event not reasonably foreseeable, is reasonably established in this case on the basis of the lack of adequate informed consent. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.361(d)(1)(ii).” https://www.va.gov/vetapp16/files4/1626596.txt I imagine all vets would consent to any VA or private doctor's procedure or surgery-but none of them would expect results that are definitely malpractice. In the member's case here, this will be a difficult claim to prove service connection for- and only his stack of VA medical records would reveal if malpractice did occur. This case is one of many- veteran do consent to procedures and surgeries and yet the VA can still be held liable for Negligence/malpractice: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/10/11/va-conceals-shoddy-care-and-health-workers-mistakes/739852001/
  6. Section 1151 claims only involve proven negligence or malpractice by a VA health care provider, enough negligence or malpractice to cause additional disability rated at least at 10%. "the service connected option was my father was a telephone installer / repairer in the army 1952 to 1954 he had fell twice on his back from climbing poles. from a height lesser then 6 feet in the military. however his records whwre burn in the 1973 fire. and his dd 214 has him listed as a heavy truck driver which route should I take " I feel you could certainly help him file a SC claim as I assume he has no service connected disability now- The VA will often say the veteran's records were lost in the St Louis fire- but sometimes that is not true. He can request his inservice medical records and personnel records at : https://www.archives.gov/ The site will have a blank SF 180 he can fill out. and, unless this has changed, he also will need to print off a bar coded thing, sign it, copy it for his records, and mail it to the address the form directs him too. It is always possible that the VA 'burned in St Louis fire" stuff is BS. He will need proof of an inservice nexus, such as the pole accidents to prove that he was injured in service this way and then he will need to prove that his current KYPHOSIS is directly due to a SC disability. This will not be easy because kyphosis can have many causes. https://www.va.gov/vetapp13/files3/1321099.txt This shows how the VA can deny these claims. Here is a successful claim. "Subsequently, in November 2014, a Decision Review Officer (DRO) granted service connection for Scheuermann's kyphosis of dorsolumbar spine, effective April 29, 2014. The Veteran appealed for an earlier effective date. It appears the DRO set the effective date based on receipt of the evidence found sufficient to reopen the claim. Presumably this was considered the date entitlement arose under the regulation. However, regardless of when that evidence was received, it is considered submitted in conjunction with the reopened claim of February 4, 2011. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). As the low back disability has been extant for many years, it is the receipt of the reopened claim which is the later here, and therefore an earlier effective date of service connection of February 4, 2011, is warranted. As is noted above, the Veteran has filed a claim for CUE in the earliest 1988 and 1990 denials of service connection for his low back disability. Those claims are referred to the RO, and are not intertwined with the Board’s determination here. Bilateral Hearing Loss Disability, and Tinnitus " https://www.va.gov/vetapp18/files12/18157484.txt But the best thing you can do is to have him get his inservice records and if they cannot be found and they were in the Fire, the VA has an enhanced duty to assist him. Still kyphosis can have many causes- spinal injuries being one of them and I feel he is going to need an IMO/IME at some point. You might have to prove the stenosis was due to the falls, which in turn caused the kyphosis. Did the VA do the surgery?
  7. Also the recent decision you got might have CUEs in it. Every vet should carefully read over the VA's evidence list. If something probative is missing they might definitely have basis for 38 CFR 4.6 CUE.They should file it right sway and use the alpha nurmeric on the decision and put the CUE Attentton to: the alpha part-because they are the initials of the last person who worked on your claim. If something probative is listed but they did not consider it, in the decision, that too i a CUE under 38 CFR 4.6
  8. Yes- I remember you as Yulooking---- We had many discussions here , this is one of them, to try to find out if Bradley ( decided in Nov 2008) would be applied retroactively: I dont know if it can be- will try to find out. "? Why should I send to board an wait 3 or 2 year I can withdraw an claim on Berkley vs pesky an just make them look at decision with a cue. " I would do both- because they might make another lousy decision due to this: "She said I will put your. form 9 an request the hearing your case cant go anywhere in till hearing. Which mean ssoc. I tho she was b's ing." If they do prepare a SSOC, it might have CUEs in it. "I have in home care pay by hospital because they keep playing." Do you mean VA pays for it? This definitely sounds like good evidence for SMC S Housebound award. Yulooking- I hope you will read over some of my posts here on 38 CFR 4.6: Some info might be found under a hadit search for " Go CUE yourself VA". I have been successful in filing CUE as soon as I got some bogus decision.And got a fast award. And no need for a NOD , etc etc etc. Wehave a link here to my article The Power of 38 CFR 4.6...I will try to find it--- The Buffalo VARO broke this regulations countless times over the past 25 years regarding my claims, but filing CUE got them to do it right. I have 4 issues now all CUE and sent them not only the sole piece of Evidence I need ( OGC 08-97 ) but sent them a 21- 4138 with contact info for the General COunsel VA, if they cannot understand the Precedent Opinion. The article is here: https://www.hadit.com/power-38-cfr-4-6/ The VCAA info is dated but is now called the 5103 waiver. One of my CUEs is based on the fact that a VSO for the Director called me to verify they had sent me a 5103 and had the evidence I had sent to them. The 5103 was for two claims. The denied one and under CUE they reversed right away. The other claim had significant evidence with it- and I wrote down on the 5103 , a description of the evidence for both claims ( One was the one I cued right away.) I asked him to read back to me a brief decription of what he had- ( this way he could not agree with me if I said what I sent- I know the tricks they play) and he read back a brief heading of each piece of evidence I had sent for that claim- then they decided the claim without even using the evidence at all! That is one of my current issues. My long point here is the 38 CFR 4.6 is a GREAT regulation to whip put on them under CUE if the VA fails to consider any probative evidence they have in their possession. Buffalo has done this to me so many times, that I expect another ludicrous decision.And will file CUE on it the very next day.And will file the CUE with IRIS as well as a complaint. even though they reversed the 1151 HBP claim( the first claim listed on the 5103)and awarded, within a few days I might have a signed copy the C & P exam that prompted the denial. I do not believe it was prepared by anyone with any medical background at all.It was ridiculous and the evidence list contained the sole piece of evidence I needed and sent to them- it was a VA Central Medical report.The cardio doctor who did it long ago -for my FTCA case- is still A top cardio with VA, and specializes in HBP, the claim was for HBP. So they did list the evidence I had, but still this bogus psuedo medical person tried to downplay an opinion that held far more weight than his did. I think the Guy who called me from my RO (and who said we have already 'picked' someone who will do the posthumous HBP C & P exam) is the person who wrote the exam. He had no medical background at all. If the exam was done by a real VA or contracted doctor , then I will raise Holy Hell! Because this is how malpractice starts in the first place. If a VA doctor or contracted doctor cannot prepare a valid C & P exam, based on the medical evidence in their possession, and in my case this was a simple 2 page exam ordered by General Counsel ,how in the heck can they diagnose and treat veterans, with any proper medical care.? 38 CFR 4.6 is my favorite regulation to use for CUE.However there are many other legal errors they make that would render the basis for a valid CUE.
  9. Buffalo- when I was in ebenefits it said I had 53 historic issues with them. They gave me a lot of crap, I got a double DRO review under a IRIS CUE I filed. My useless state vet rep went to the second review- they had not considered 4,000 bucks of my IMos. The double DRO review got me the same DRO who did the denial and she handed the IMos back to my rep saying she could not read them. I asked the rep if he got them into the record but he didn't answer- he said at least I got you another posthumous C & P exam. I asked him if the DRO could not read the IMOs how can she possibly read the results of a C & P exam. I could have cued them again but had enrolled into AMU to finish my degree and I KNEW the BVA would award the claim and they did. I have named their Director and another person in my OAWB complaint and someone else , a veteran who deals with them, has written to the IG and is filing a WH complaint against their director. She called me twice to believe something that was ridiculous and it proved to me she does not know basis VA case law. Buffalo also tried to make up a regulations to deny my SMC CUE, and when I asked them to produce it they didn't respond.They withheld probative evidence I had for my wrongful death case, withheld it from a C & P doctor as well as the Office of General Counsel. The last C &P I got was so ludicrous, (I won with a CUE 3 weeks later)that I am waiting for a copy of the actual signed exam. I got a call from the local VAMC the other day asking me about the Exam, from info he got from Buffalo. He said why do you need the exam? I said because I do not believe anyone with a medical background wrote-I think the director's VSO shill wrote it. The Buffalo VARO made so many errors on my dead husband's issue ( not to mention that they killed him as well(FTCA.1151) that I told the OAWB I consider myself as having been targeted by them for the past 25 years. It was never a question of not having the evidence- and I finally won all those claims. Remember, anytime you get something from them, if there is an alphanumeric on the letter, that holds the initials of the last person who signed off on your claim decision. I always make sure I used those initials in my past more recent CUEs.As Attention to. That is one reason why my last denial became an award under CUE in 3 weeks. You WON a CUE in the past- so be confident that you can do that again.
  10. You said: "I just hate play these game with them but it the only way u win your benfits." Your are correct- it is all about war games, that is why I graduated from a Military University- only civilian there- It is a War of the Words. "When I spoke with a supiver she tell me she goin to put in for my dro hearing I did form 9 stating everything an say I didn't get my hearing. Give them 2 month if I don't hear shit I put it in modern appeal an wait the year." Good! I am waiting for a decision on 4 CUEs I have pending. If I get some BS decision, I will CUE that as well. I hope you dont deal with Buffalo RO.
  11. https://vetsbenefits.net/special-monthly-compensation-at-the-statutory-hous-t46204.html The Fast letter is there- our hadit link to it is broken. You should ask for SMC S , under Bradley V Peake or ask for the Housebound award. Housebound is based solely on medical evidence. Did you ever apply for SSDI or VA VocRehab? Can you scan and attach here the decision that did not award or consider SMC? Cover C file Etc prior to scanning it. I could not find Hester V Shinseki . VA awarded my SMC CUE but that was because my husband had 100% SC P & T for PTSD and also had independent awards under Section 1151. Actually they granted both theories but only one payment- He could not walk too far, could not drive, had vision problems from 1151 stroke, and could not dial a phone well nor detemine what kind of money he had, such as change and even denominations of dollar bills.Due to memory problems from th 1151 stroke he got lost when he was in the PTSD inhouse program and they took a trip in downtown Buffalo NY. He got an operator of the phne to call me collect and he always remembered our phone number, but when I asked him to idenify anystreet sign ot busines he was near, he couldnt see well enough to do that. He would heat up food on the range and walk away from it.I had to be with hjim all the time except for when the VA van took him to VA day Care at the local VAMC. He had SSDI awards for stroke and then upon reconssideration they awarded SSDI solely for PTSD with a very favorable EED. What I am suggesting is that you have to prove you are housebound. I gave VA personal statement to that affect because I was a livestock farmer and I had to sell all of my beef,goats, and sheep because I could no longer raise livestock and give him care at the same timeafter he had the 1151 stroke. My personal statements as to the HB nature and also as to the 100% plus over 60% additional were all supported by the medical evidence they had in their possession in his life time. ( part of the CUE criteria) My SMC CUE is here somewhere.I filed it in 2003 .They awarded it about 18-20 years after he died.It never went to the BVA. SMC S is not awarded for not being able to work, but for documented factual medical evidence.Personal statements from significant others can help as well.
  12. This decision and many more searchable at the BVA web site under Decisions may help you: https://www.va.gov/vetapp09/files4/0935536.txt and read page 4 of this pdf- it also refers to a Fast Letter, that I will try to find: https://www.dav.org/wp-content/uploads/National-Bulletin-1009.pdf
  13. Asknod- I have read over at least 40 BVA decisions from the past few years that held the words Agent Orange CAD denied ,and have not found yet a single CAD AO claim that was actually denied,regarding any incountry Vietnam vet Many were denied due to these reasons, the veteran had an established AO CAD rating and wanted a higher rating, and BVA remanded or denied for that reason or the veteran claimed CAD from AO but had never served in Vietnam nor proved he was exposed elsewhere, so he was denied by the BVA . the veteran claimed secondaries due to the established CAD he had from AO, and was remanded or denied, or the veteran was seeking a better EED and already had established rating and award for CAD due to AO. I am still stunned that your vet is being denied.
  14. Thank you Paul This is way out of what we ususally see here- This is a general idea of how VA determines apportionment: https://www.hillandponton.com/apportionment-va-benefits/ Matt Hill, veteran attorney, is also a member here and his site has a pop up box if you have a question. You might need an attorney to straighten this all out. Whe two spouses apply for DIC , the VA calls it a contested claim, such as this one: https://www.va.gov/vetapp17/files8/1747232.txt The regulations are cited in the decision. Were you ever advised that you had a " simultaneous contested claim," by the VA, such as this one below in the link? I will check the 2018 VBM to see what they recommend-but something bothers me here- the veteran died 6 years ago..........we dont know when the divorce took place and when this widow married the veteran......and the former wife applied right away apparently ....that means something happened in the past 6 years that might be missing to this situation..... If you received a DIC award, at an apportioned amount, over the last 6 years, you could have appealed the amount. Did you? But I do not believe the former wife could have received DIC for herself- but possibly for the child. I believe she received SBP. "Upon the filing of a notice of disagreement in a simultaneously contested claim, all interested parties and their representatives will be furnished a copy of the Statement of the Case. Id. at § 19.101. When a substantive appeal is filed in a simultaneously contested claim, the content of the substantive appeal will be furnished to the other contesting parties to the extent that it contains information which could directly affect the payment or potential payment of the benefit which is the subject of the contested claim. Id. at § 19.102." https://www.va.gov/vetapp18/files9/18137412.txt There is a lot missing here.
  15. John- you are so correct! My AO IHD claim was denied at first because ( as the denial states) my husband did not have evidence of IHD inservice. Say what??? I cued them immediately- and pointed out that most of these Vietnam vets were KIDS, when they were sent to Vietnam and he was only 18 years old, and his platoon Commander,incountry, was "the Old Man"- was only 25 years old. And if he or any young Vietnam Veteran had IHD , how could they have gotten into the service or been sent to Vietnam Within weeks ( I believe I Filed an IRIS complaint too-I was pissed) but within a few weeks the Nehmer VARO in Philadelphia awarded for AO IHD, 100% P & T stroke under 1151, and two cues I had filed- 2003 CUE on lack of consideration of SMC retro SMC 2004 Cue on lack of listing my husbands heart disease on the 1151 DIC award I got. It was clearly noted on the 1151 DIC award letter ,in their rationale for the award but no code and no rating. They did code his 100% SC P & T for PTSD in the same code sheet - so duh- 100% PTSD plus over 60%, independent 1151 SCs equals SMC A few years ago we had a vet claiming AO, (incountry Vietnam) and questioned their POA how Nehmer would work. The POA vet rep did not even know what Nehmer was. How many widows of AO vets got the same BS denial letter I got at first and didnt know what to do? And how many Vietnam vets are there , who might file under any new AO regs or under sny new BWN AO regs and get some stupid VSO or rep who does not have a clue? I do not think literacy is a job qualification to work at the VAROs. My 2003, 2004 CUEs took until 2012 to be awarded.They sat at myRO all those years with lots of back and forth BS and they were set for BVA transfer but I got Nehmer Phila to handled them because they were filed prior to the 2010 AO IHD claim and dependent on a proper resolve of the AO IHD claim. My Nehmer audit is all wrong. I didnt want to deal with them again but it is what it is - I have 4 CUEs filed on it now. The audit from Nehmer states it is an "estimate."I wonder if anyone else got a retro based on an "estimate". Past retro payments to me have had errors in them to the tune of $40,000. It is " as likely as not" they buggered my Nehmer audit. I got the money in their past errors , and I know they sure have sophisticated mathematical PC programs, but those programs are controlled by someone putting in the information. It is a real time comsuming pain in the butt to go over VA audits but I bet they make mistakes in audits, to the claimant's detriment, that are never found by the claimant and never challenged.
  16. I forgot to add, my husband was never diagnosed or treated by VA for IHD. It was one of the conditions they malpracticed on, (FTCA settlement /1151 award). The Nehmer VARO gave him a very favorable EED for IHD but they had to guess at the rating- 6 years retro ( but of course the IHD was the prime cause of his death so he could not benefit from that decision) An ECHO reveals a lot of info, when arteries narrow due to atherosclerosis ,clots can form in the heart.Or go to the brain. Your vet probably also has PAD-peripheral arteriol disease that might affect his lower extremities. I wonder if his VA doctor is even a VA employee ( or some contracted doctor who is not a VA employee.) They sure dont sound like a Dr familiar with cardiology.
  17. The VA has Sced CAD to AO. In the decision the CAD is noted this way: "Ischemic heart disease (coronary artery disease) was not added to the list of presumptive conditions based on herbicide exposure until August 31, 2010." https://www.va.gov/vetapp19/files1/19106130.txt "I keep hitting the wall on IHD. I have a doctor say he has CAD. I get denied. I have a dr say Arteriosclerosis throughout (including the coronary arteries and peripherals). I get denied. I say Atherosclerosis. Denied" Gee dont give up on this- I know you won't. As many know my husband died of IHD.( Vietnam 65-66 USMC) and the ECHO was one of the prime ways I had to prove my AO death claim. I am shocked to see that this vet has arteriosclerosis( which the ECHO I used proved-due to the measurements etc.)yet VA denied for IHD? Or CAD? The C & P exam he got was probably flawed and not done by a cardio doc. Can you scan and attach the VA denial? And the evidence list ( cover names, and C file # prior to scanning it) The vet above wanted a better EED for his AO CAD-he was in th same glitch I mentioned on th AO show I did last wek here. He thought the AORegistry stuff was a formal claim. It wasn't. But my point here is how can he get AO for CAD and your vet can't?
  18. This article ( Matt Hill , attorney ,is a hadit member) https://www.hillandponton.com/ischemic-heart-disease-va-disability-benefits/ Might help. I do not know know if you heart problems are ischemic in nature but your cardio doctor would know.
  19. There is plenty of info on the net as to how DMII can cause heart disease. “Diabetes mellitus is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) including stroke.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5483423/ You could claim the heart problems as secondary to theDMII, with a strong IMO/IME from a real doctor with expertise in the field of Endocrinology or cardiology. An independent medical opinion (IMO) or Exam (IME) can be costly but it is something to cnsider because the independent doc will fully read through your medical records. I do not know if the heart disability you mentioned would full under ischemic heart disease. (IHD) If it does you can claim it due to the 2010 Nehmer Court Order. Ischemic heart disease usually involves atherosclerosis of the arteries. I will try to find VA's definition of IHD for AO purposes.
  20. I am so sorry for your loss. Some of this does not make sense to me: "She is getting SS for him, DIC and SBP and part of my benefits as well. I just need someone to put me in the right direction" How do you know that? It would be possible that she gets SSA for the child and maybe for herself ,until the child is 16.fully legit. It would also be possible that he signed up for the SBP program ( I assume he was a Military lifer ) and that would make some sense-if he continued to pay it for her. I do not see how she could get DIC and you do as well....??? that definitely does not make sense. Also ( I am a Gold Star wife) and the GSWs fight aggressively to try to get SBP without the DIC offset or vice versa- she is qualified to be a Gold Star wife- so are you. You also would be eligible for SSA for the child you have and possibly a Mother's Benefit, as I was before my daughter joined the Military. " I am receiving VA benefits from him." What benefits, do you get a DIC monthly benefit? It should be more than mine is because you have a child . I get $ 1,319.04 p/m as the unmarried surviving spouse of my husband. Have you app;lied for SSA benefits for the child you had with him? But still...... can you scan and attach whatever the VA sent to you regarding the "apportionment" Before you scan and attach it here , cover your name, address, and C file number. He might surely have had Military insurance. My daughter still has hers ( $200,000) maybe more by now but that goes to the beneficiary he listed when he purchased it. We need more info. His child with the former wife would be eligible for DIC. I dont see how the former wife could eligible for it.
  21. This is why I suiggested in another post in th AO forum that now is the time for any Vietnam or BWN vet to see if their medical records reveal "essential" to describe their hypertention. They might need that record for a proper EED. And they should pull out any past denials and ratings sheets for HBP as well, if they are not SC for it under a different medical theory and rationale. I believe that by mid June we will have the Secretary's decision. He could decide to put NONE of the 5 disabilities in the report on the AO list. I am still a little in shock that Shinseki did put IHD on the AO list.9 years ago. and it Was BIG News and involved lots of retro for many.
  22. This is what I meant: This is from my letter to Secretary Wilkie and anyone can make the same point it they write to him.I gave his Washington address, twitter handle, and email addy here somewhere recently in the AO forum. I prefaced this with quotes from the 2018 NAN (formerly IOM) reports. The new report states "Sufficient evidence."The full report is here somewhere. "Hypertension (category change from Limited or Suggestive in Update 2014)” I feel “Sufficient evidence” is much stronger than the 2014 report regarding AO and hypertension. I am aware how prevalent HBP is in the general elderly population.However that does not account for the Vietnam veteran's population separately, yet this newest report raises the nexus to hypertension as due to Agent Orange, regarding any incountry Vietnam veteran.Since HBP is treated so well these days, a VA rating due to HBP under this report,if considered as a presumptive, would not be as costly as one might think, as I would expect the ratings to be fairly low if the HBP is well controlled, medically. Most veterans have had their hypertension deemed as “essential” by VAdoctors , meaning there was no known cause for it, but now there is a cause and etiology- Agent Orange, based on the 2018 report." My letter went on regarding ischemic stroke as a potential new AO and why, medically and I raised other issues comng his way. (The big problem with HBP is the cost factor.) Buck asked: "What exactly do they mean by this ''essential'' In regard to the new A.O. Presumptions? " If the Sec picks Hypertention as a new AO presumptive, and If Nehmer 2010 kicks in for a new Nehmer , and If it includes the Footnote One stipulation then any vet with past NSC hypertension and a rating of at least 10 % (maybe "0" would do as well that could become beginning of a retro staged Fenderson rating) who becomes an AO HBP vet via any new decision by the Secretary , then that veteran might well get retro back to when the hypertension first appeared as NSC in a past decision. Lots of ifs- and then there is the fact- if Blue Waters succeed with proper regulations, as presumptive to AO, that too will be part of the HBP cost factor. Nehmer applies to Vietnam incountry veterans. Blue Waters -if they are designated as incountry- will be under Nehmer-but I have no idea what their status will become. There is so much to these issues- I dont have time to post all they involve- as soon as I hear anything on the BWN AO regs or from NVLSP on any new potentials, I will post it here. Also NVLSP has something else in the works- re: AO and CUE---- Footnote one is explained here in our AO forum ad finitum. I am a footnote one widow and many if not most of our Vietnam vets with IHD are /were probably Footnote One veterans. And NVLSP checked their retro to see if they got the correct EED.
  23. That is a good idea-to keep track of it by calling them- I filed a complaint in about mid July 2018 and had so much going on, but by end of September I was very concerned but on Oct 1, 2018 I got email from OAWB, where the complaint was directed to- then a lot happened with that complaint after OAWB got it. It still involves more work for me but that's OK- I believe it depends on the issues.... and finding the best place to deal with those issues. My complaint did not involve the claims process.It involved Accountability regarding malpractice issues.
  24. It might be the same doctor who is a member here: https://community.hadit.com/topic/66816-ptsd-denied-nsc-schizophrenia-nsc/page/3/ or perhaps he gave VietnamVet's Sis another doctor to prepare an IMO/IME. Can you get your brother's permission to scan and attach his denial here? Or can he join us? It is easy to scan and attach documents here. Cover his name, address, C file # prior to scanning and attaching it. We need to see the Rationale for their denial and the Evidence list they used. Does he receive SSDI for Schizophrenia? Does he have copies of his complete SMRs and 201 (military personnel file)? Does he get continuous medical care for his disability? Does his treatment come from a private doctor ( who might be willing to prepare an IMO/IMO) or from the VA? Nothing is impossible!
  25. John, I mentioned your reference to "essential " hypertension in last week's show , in a letter to the Secretary- It is a profound point- I stated to the Sec- after entry from the 2018 National Academies Report: "Hypertension (category change from Limited or Suggestive in Update 2014) I feel “Sufficient evidence” is much stronger than the 2014 report regarding AO and hypertension." ( gave him the link to that) and I know he is considering the cost factor-due to the high incidence of hypertension in seniors ,which most if not all Vietnam vets ,are these days) I added: "I am aware how prevalent HBP is in the general elderly population.However that does not account for the Vietnam veteran's population separately, yet this newest report raises the nexus to hypertension as due to Agent Orange, regarding any incountry Vietnam veteran.Since HBP is treated so well these days, a VA rating due to HBP under this report,if considered as a presumptive, would not be as costly as one might think, as I would expect the ratings to be fairly low if the HBP is well controlled, medically. Most veterans have had their hypertension deemed as “essential” by VAdoctors , meaning there was no known cause for it, but now there is a cause and etiology- Agent Orange, based on the 2018 report." The Secretary's address, twitter handle and email addy are here in this forum. I sure dont believe one or two letters from a civilian widow living on a farm high up in the beautiful Allegheny Mountain Plateau would have as much clout as hearing from HBP Vietnam veterans themselves. Then again, I made the point that my husband was dead due to VA health care itself, as well as two AO disabilities, and HBP was one of the "multiple" disabilities they (VA/OGC) found had caused his death (FTCA/1151) I attached my 1151 award letter. Obviously there is more to that letter-regarding another issue he will be eventially dealing with- that he probably does not know about yet. Actually I do expect to hear from him. My emaill to you this AM bounced back to me- maybe because of the weather-it snowed again here- but I sure cannot thank you enough for bringing up the "essential" point. It was Fabulous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines