Jump to content

Berta

HadIt.com Elder
  • Content Count

    27,978
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    366

Everything posted by Berta

  1. Thank you, I didn't post the link to it here- unless that is OK with you----- The BVA conceded the stressor, as you said, and it appears the remand is to determine the rating, just as you said. These types of claims are here, from male and well as female veterans. You are Not alone by any means. It is heartbreaking and something I worried about during my daughter's 7 years in service. No one should go through anything like this, when they willingly join and serve our country. I hope the Perps rot in Hell. I will go through the BVA decision carefully to see if there is anything you could do to help with this remand, but it looks to me like the VARO is doing their job,properly , with the appointments they have given to you.
  2. Thank you for clarifying this- Do you mind giving us the Docket # of the Remand? BVA decisions are available on line, but in no way identify the claimant. We are all pretty good about deciphering BVA lingo----which is different than the way the ROs talk in decisions.
  3. THANKS!!!!!! It sure would apply to ny veteran who fits into this criteria: "(iii) Where the disability from disease is permanent in character and of such nature that there is no likelihood of improvement; " I don't think I was aware of that regulation when I wrote the letter for the above vet I mentioned.There is no way the VA could have given him a new colon or take away the colostomy bag he still must use.All because they said he had hemmoroids for years ,and finally sent him to a different VAMC, who found he didnt have hemmoroids, he had stage 4 colon cancer.100% P & T under 1151. The going scuttlebutt I heard at the local VAMC (both he and my husband, dead by then due to VA health FTCA.1151 worked at VA dietetics) was 'what are they going to do, kill all of us Vietnam vets who work in dietetics?' I heard one vet say- 'no just the crazy Vietnam vets who work here, 'and someone else hollered over the food service work noise ,' Hey we are all Certified crazy, here in dietetics. That is where they did put many Vietnam vets - in dietetics because in those days nepotism was rampant. BTW, I worked in a VA vet center and was voted into the PTSD Combat group- I have never met any vet with PTSD who was crazy. But they sure like to kid about that. My daughter made the combat vets diplomas from the University of South Vietnam's College of of Dinky Daw, for the team of combat vets my husband was with in at the 21 day inhouse PTSD program for their last day there. They loved it, many called her thanking her, and some of them were even at his Military Funeral here at Bath NY VAMC. a few short weeks later....after he came back home from Buffalo VAMC PTSD program.
  4. 8 Hours ago you posted this: 9 hours ago you posted this: "My claim for PTSD has been service connected. Now I will be attending an appointment on 7/23 with a PsychD to determine the rating (or she’ll send her report to the rater?" I am assuming the C & P examiner had your SMRs and they revealed the stressor.....?
  5. Make sure your stressor is provable. A PTSD diagnosis, that might come from the C & P exam, means nothing, if you cannot prove what inservice event caused the PTSD.
  6. double posts------ sorry-----this is the New Reconsideration regulation: This is what former Secretary Shulkin changed based on my suggestion- I hope this is the right one- the search feature here takes so long ----- the point is that the NOD time frame can now be extended , due to a valid reconsideration request. We actually had a lawyer here argue with me that there was no such thing as Reconsideration (he knows better now) and a vet rep who thought, prior to this change, years ago -that a Recon Request would stop the NOD clock.It didn't until the most recent change and I wonder how many vets lost their claims due to his negligent advice.I hope they sued him. Buck I might not be here much for a few days.not only weather problems affecting my internet but also many other issues taking up my time......maybe you can add some more advice for this member....
  7. You can add to the CUE I wrote-but I feel, since you had 26 issues, and have until March 2020 to file a NOD, these issues can be covered in the NOD. Also the decision ( March 2019) does state they would reconsider the decision if you prove you developed any psychosis or active mental condition during or within 2 years of your separation. You could also ask for a reconsideration on that basis.That would extend the NOD deadline. The M21-1MR revision of that is here under a search. It resulted from a letter I sent to former Secretary Shulkin, who also used my CUE suggestion as well in M 21-1MR. " I would like to think this is just an error that LHI did not check the box. I don't think they will talk to me directly about this. I think my rating would be increased from the 50% they gave me if LHI had completed the form properly. What should I do about the person signing not being the person who did my exam? The exam doctor was a fully certified and licensed psychologist. Thankful I had written her information down." There is contact info here for LHI. Many veterans have contacted them directly due to problems in a C & P exam. Make this point to them: " I had had a suicide screening at the VA in January that showed results "revealed suicidal ideation over the last 2 weeks, which indicates a POSITIVE primary screen for Risk of Suicide." https://logisticshealth.com/provider-network.aspx
  8. You can add to the CUE I wrote, or you can ask- as the March 2019 decision says, ask for a reconsideration on the percentage-which I advise doing, instead of adding to the CUE claims, and you also have time to properly prepare a NOD. on each denial you feel should be service connected. Your decision had 26 issues. You can file a NOD on any of them with evidence that they should be service connected. You can, from what I saw in the downloads,-file a valid CUE on the TMJ, and add some good internet printouts of the well known fact that any MH can cause Bruxism ( TMJ). We have TMJ vets here as well if you use the search feature, to see how they handled those claims. "I had had a suicide screening at the VA in January that showed results "revealed suicidal ideation over the last 2 weeks, which indicates a POSITIVE primary screen for Risk of Suicide.". I would like to think this is just an error that LHI did not check the box. I don't think they will talk to me directly about this. I think my rating would be increased from the 50% they gave me if LHI had completed the form properly. What should I do about the person signing not being the person who did my exam? The exam doctor was a fully certified and licensed psychologist. Thankful I had written her information down." You can call LHI- their contact info is here under a search, or you can google them for it. I lost a more detailed response to you minutes ago because the weather affects my satellite- I am in a cloud. Others will chime in. And I suggest that you go over some of the posts here regarding Reconsideration, and filing a NOD, etc etc.
  9. Diabetes Mellitus can cause many secondary conditions- visual problems, skin problems, foot problems, transcient ischemic attacks( mini strokes), full blown strokes, peripheral neuropathy, candidiasis, Peripheral arterial disease and can also cause major heart conditions, heart attacks ,and death,if it is not properly treated. I filed a DMII ( AO claim) regarding my husband's death, and used the VA Diabetes Training letter which is searchable here, to prove the multiple conditions he had. What made it difficult is that I had already won FTCA/1151 for malpractice, so I had to carefully word this claim to be for direct service connected death. I never had a IMO for the FTCA/ 1151 cases,which were granted, but this time-(i had a RO who was ignoring my evidence) and I gladly paid $4,000 for 2 IMOs, and got a freebee from a Neuro who used to work for the VA, because I knew the BVA , unlike my RO, would read my evidence, They did .I won that claim too. You will need an IME to support any secondaries you claim. What is your Effective date and what disability is that for? I do not understand what significance that has to your DMII. DMII ( diabetes Mellitus) can be service connected with proof of exposure to AO.In country vets, and soon , certain Blue Water veterans and their survivors ( possibly 130,000 per Sec Wilkie) will be eligible for AO compensation, when the regulations are prepared. Diabetes Type One is not a AO presumptive. We need more info. I reviewed all of the medical records together myself for my DMII IMOs. The IMO doc did not need the SMRS. I gave him a cover letter regarding all of the exhibits I enclosed, that revealed malpracticed DMII. It was so bad-the malpractice- on the DMII - that the VA didn't even rate it but the ancillary benefits, because I claimed a direct SC death, which they awarded , were voluminous. I also had a 1151 claim for malpracticed IHD but then Nehmer happened, and that too was awarded as direct SC death. My 1151 IHD claim is still an open issue they have to fix. If you have heart disease and it is ischemic, it might be secondary to the DMII , but you can also file it for direct SC under Nehmer. The 2010 regulations for Nehmer are here in the AO forum.
  10. Someone here said: "You are talking about a very rare instance where the VA call's you for a new C&P when the law says it is not legally required." I can't find that law............
  11. Years ago I got a local vet friend of mine 100% P & T. 1151. They almost killed him but he didnt want to file FTCA, so I wrote the 1151 claim for him. It went Very fast. He went ballistic some years after that when they called him in to re-evaluate the 1151 issue. There is no way the VA can cure the loss of most of his colon, due to their medical error in a cancer diagnosis.He is a very difficult vet to deal with but I wrote a statement for him to send to the VARO and also I contacted the PT advocate here- because he was arguing with them at the local VAMC about it. The PT advocate could easily understand his anger. The RO dropped the re evaluation idea based on the letter I sent to them. A 100 % or TDIU P & T status , to be revoked or re-evaluated for any reason, needs a strong medical reason why. I guess if a 100% P & T vet stopped getting their Prescriptions filled, or didnt show up for appointments, the VA could think they have been cured.;
  12. Yes. My husband died with a 30% SC for PTSD rating. He had a claim pending for higher rating and also filed a 1151 claim (stroke) . SSA award SSDI for the stroke. But my husband had listed his PTSD as the prime disability he had....He thought he might recover from the stroke but never did. I spent hours at the SSA office because I asked them if I could read and xerox a few pages from the manual they use to determine disability.I found exactly what I needed- They are supposed to consider ALL disabilities on the application. We filed for reconsideration and he receive a new SSDI award with a very favorable EED and more SSDI retro.For PTSD. The VA refused to get his SSA records.I have 3 letters here to and from my Congressman/Senators, that said per VA that SSA refused to release his records.I call Main SSA in Baltimore and found that was a lie. I get angry over that- your question -the answer is Yes- SSDI awarded for both the 1151 stroke, and then for the PTSD solely based on VA medical records. He received a posthumous award for the PTSD from VA,(100% P & T) after a battle, and then he received 100% P & T , 1151 for the stroke.( a battle still in progress due to another issue...) SSA did want me to take him to a SSA doctor quite a distance to drive to ,at first, but the stroke had made him violent, especially in the car, if he thought the farm tractors were the enemy.It had excerbated his PTSD from the war. I refused to drive him that far.They say OK. They had all of his VA medical records and knew what I said was true.His PTSD doctor said that as well.I dont like to reveal stuff like that, but at times due to his major catastrophic disabilities, I was the enemy too.
  13. Attention to : Alphanumeric ( on the decision if there is one) RO date C file # This is a claim of CUE ( Clear and Unmistakable Error in your recent May 23 2019 decision, under auspices of 38 USC 5109. This is in addition to the separate CUE I am enclosing on your March 23, 2011 decision. In your recent decision you listed considerable evidence that you called “new” evidence and gave me a EED of December 9, 2018. However that evidence was probative -because it involved a thorough consideration of my SMRs, which the VA had had in their possession for both of these decisions....Consideration I did not receive , that produced your March 23 2011 denial. I feel that this is definitely a violation of 38 CFR 4.6: § 4.6 Evaluation of evidence. “The element of the weight to be accorded the character of the veteran's service is but one factor entering into the considerations of the rating boards in arriving at determinations of the evaluation of disability. Every element in any way affecting the probative value to be assigned to the evidence in each individual claim must be thoroughly and conscientiously studied by each member of the rating board in the light of the established policies of the Department of Veterans Affairs to the end that decisions will be equitable and just as contemplated by the requirements of the law.” 38 CFR 4.6 Since the May 23 ,2019 award and EED ( December 2018) was based on evidence in your possession, at time of the 2011 denial,yet was not thoroughly considered, until I re-opened the claim, then the “new “ evidence included a proper reading of my “old" evidence, i.e., the SMRs- that you stated you had when you made the 2011 decision to deny. This has obviously had a manifested outcome that is detrimental to me. I feel you should correct this ,by considering both of the enclosed CUE claims, and this specific CUE claim should warrant a faster proper decision, because both of your decisions 2011, and 2019, involve the lack of proper application of 38 CFR 4.6 regarding my major depressive disorder ( also claimed as anxiety). Sincerely, Enclosed: page 3 of the Evidence list , based on the same SMRs you had in 2011. . ( I suggest enclosing this first as a separate claim and then add the other claim.) This could resolve everything but I have not used this tactic before- often the veteran needs to CUE a past decision but yet, there is enough here from the downloads to request them to do what I call a GCY claim ( GO CUE Yourself VA) as well - meaning a CUE filed within the appeal period that can resolve, as in my experiences, personally) a decision thatcould come fast and is proper.) I recently filed CUE on an award I got only by cueing them on the denial. The award came in 3 weeks. But they gave the wrong EED and said I already had been paid. No I haven't. (Please check my dates in above, I am typing very fast - we expect a major thunderstorm here and we might lose power at any time)
  14. Your Unit in Montana would surely have a web site and that site might reveal a reunion roster or other ways to could contact veterans who 'guarded B 52s". If this is about a claim, we need more info.
  15. I will prepare another brief CUE on the Recent award. It seems to me that the "new evidence" had to reveal consideration of the older evidence ( your SMRS). I suggest referring them on the March 2011 CUE ,to the recent CUE on the newer decision and vice versa, because I think this is the same VARO for both decisions, and this could make the CUE go much faster. It might not work ( a CUE on their recent award)but one never knows until they try everything they can, to correct errors that are detrimental to the veteran. I have filed many CUEs on a 1998 award.(all granted, but their payment was wrong.) Believe me, I have pulled some interesting things on them-my current issues involved thinking way out of the box.
  16. GEEEEZ I made an error- in the CUE I said in your "recent " decision, but I should have said in the date of the 2011 denial......March 23, 2011 I believe.......So sorry---- Boy if I start making errors like that, I could get a job with the VA . I have been thinking a lot about the recent award------there might be a way to CUE that----I will go over the downloads carefully again...
  17. The worse FTCA situation I know of,is yet to come. Fayetteville Arkansas----possibly 12 deaths and other disabilities- due to one VA Pathologist. https://www.disabledveterans.org/2019/02/05/massive-malpractice-reported-at-fayetteville-va-3000-instances/ Those of us on the Radio show crew believe our technician Mike Sasser is dead due to this pathologist. We believe his wife filed a wrongful death claim but not sure. Fayetteville VA (I spoke to their Media contact person) said they gave the veterans and families of deceased veterans,who might have been victims of the Dr's malpractice, info on how to file FTCA and/or 1151 claims. I wonder if they really did- but I watched their Town Hall meetings on this and the room had plenty of malpractice lawyers in it. I emailed a lawyer in Fayetteville, from a malpractice firm, and he replied that he was right there- in the videos, of the meetings ,talking to the vets there and said there were many other lawyers present doing that as well. I really do not trust VA employees to advise vets of their FTCA/1151 rights.
  18. Yes -that makes sense- I was only concerned if whether you had missed any other MH C & P exam. And thanks for clarifying the SMR dates. I hope this goes well for you-I have not lost personal CUE yet and I realized I have filed many of them against my RO. And some vets here have had success with filing CUE, as I recommended, within the appeal period, with no need for a NOD. I saw a few have success as well with a suggestion I made to former Secretary Shulkin, that someone at these ROs should seek CUE in every decision they make, prior to sending the decision out.It is also in M21-1M@, but I know the ROs do not take the time to do that for every decision, so we ,as claimants, have to be aware that VA makes MANY errors, some that are only caught by the BVA-years after the fact-because a well paid VA adjudicator cannot read. BVA does not call CUE on those errors ( many are under 38 CFR 4.6- failure to read probative evidence)but, as in my BVA case, they awarded anyhow. Others are often awarded but then remanded for other reasons. Evidence is the most important thing a claimant needs. It is an outrage that, even when VA has probative evidence, they can ignore it and deny the claim. I really don't think they are illiterate, I think it is a deliberate scam, to get claims off the desk ASAP,with a denial that can cause years in the appeal process for the veteran. It amazes me that any claims are awarded right off the bat, at all. Some of the evidence in the award ,they consider as "new", so this is why you need to go over that "new" evidence to see what rested on the SMRs that they (VA) had when they made their denial.
  19. I see a potential CUE here- maybe---- If they committed CUE, in their March 29,2011 decision, the retro would go back to the day after your discharge. But, a few questions: What was the July 2, 2010 C & P exam for-that they said you missed? What was the August 13, 2010 C & P exam for , that they say you missed? I have focused on # 25 in the issues, in the downloads for the March 29,2011 They said consistently that they considered all available medical evidence they had from your SMRs. On page 3 of 13 on the Award , They listed considerable evidence in order to develop the award. It states Service Medical Records for the period ---it doesn't say what period----. All of that evidence is dated more recently than the denial, such as Patient First-Battlefiled 1-25-13,and numerous other entities. CUE rests on- as I mentioned here many times over the years, what I deem the Watergate Question.... What did they know and when did they know it? This is what you need to file : You need to fill in the blank spots and refer them to the SMRS and enclose copies of them: Put Attention to: ( put the initials in the alpha numeric on the decision) This is a Claim of Clear and Unmistakable Errors in(CUE) in your recent ( date of decision) under auspices of 38 USC 5109. This is a violation of § 4.6 Evaluation of evidence. "The element of the weight to be accorded the character of the veteran's service is but one factor entering into the considerations of the rating boards in arriving at determinations of the evaluation of disability. Every element in any way affecting the probative value to be assigned to the evidence in each individual claim must be thoroughly and conscientiously studied by each member of the rating board in the light of the established policies of the Department of Veterans Affairs to the end that decisions will be equitable and just as contemplated by the requirements of the law. "38 CFR 4.6. You failed to consider probative evidence in my SMRS that warranted my (date) recent award of service connection for this same disability. That evidence, in your possession at time of the (dated) denial, is enclosed and listed as Evidence in this claim of CUE. Your failure to "thoroughly and conscientiously"study probative"elements" in my SMRs caused the erromeous denial in ( date of denial). That failure had a manifested detrimental outcome to me, that garnered the denial. I request that this clear and unmistakable error be promptly corrected. Enclosures Respectfully, (List each copy of SMR here, as they relate to diagnosis and treatment of your MH Issue ,and total them) If any of the entities mentions on the Evidence list of the award, stated they had reviewed your SMRs, tell them that as well. And enclose that evidence. Make sure that your C file #, name and address is on everything you send to them. I am assuming that the same RO that made the award , also made the past denial-I don't have time to read all the downloads again.Cue has to be filed against the RO who committed the CUE. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But- I might have to change this depending on your answers to the above questions. Also we have a TMJ vet here who I prepared a CUE for. TMJ is a known physical response to MH issues. Perhaps you could re-open that claim as you did with this one and then CUE them on that past denial. You might have already sent to them, for the award, the inservice treatment records for the anxiety/depression. If so , unfortunately I suggest sending them again. I have my own claims issues and realised that my RO has( from 1995 to 2019, NEVER considered my husband's autopsy. My FTCA/ 1151awards and other claims involving his death were resolved by general and regional Counsel, who read the autopsy. I have had to file a WH complaint, a complaint with the IG, letters of complaints to two RO directors and today I am contacting the District counsel who covers both ROs. I mentioned to the IG that this is the 14th time (at least) that I have had to send the autopsy to them and I had the USPS tracking receipts to prove that. As I have said here many times, veterans, if you love your spouse and I assume you do, please make sure they are PC literate ,because the VA can and will victimize them throughout the claims process and the former vet reps I had were useless in handling my claims and told me my most important claim didnt have a chance. I filed a OGC complaint against them and they are all gone.I also emailed the state reps lawyer when I won. Everyone here by now who has been at hadit for a few years by now, can start to help others with CUE claims. It took me about 30-40 minutes to go over the thread, and the downloads carefully, and write the above CUE. If I am willing to take the time, to do that , so can others here. Everything you need to know about CUE -is in the CUE forum.
  20. Bumping it up- cant find the original post---- “(d) Determination Of Offshore.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of this section, the Secretary shall treat a location as being offshore of Vietnam if the location is not more than 12 nautical miles seaward of a line commencing on the southwestern demarcation line of the waters of Vietnam and Cambodia and intersecting the following points: “Points Geographic Names Latitude North Longitude East At Hon Nhan Island, Tho Chu Archipelago Kien Giang Province 9°15.0’ 103°27.0’ At Hon Da Island southeast of Hon Khoai Island Minh Hai Province 8°22.8’ 104°52.4’ At Tai Lon Islet, Con Dao Islet in Con Dao-Vung Toa Special Sector 8°37.8’ 106°37.5’ At Bong Lai Islet, Con Dao Islet 8°38.9' 106°40.3' At Bay Canh Islet, Con Dao Islet 8°39.7’ 106°42.1’ At Hon Hai Islet (Phu Qui group of islands) Thuan Hai Province 9°58.0’ 109°5.0’ At Hon Doi Islet, Thuan Hai Province 12°39.0’ 109°28.0’ At Dai Lanh point, Phu Khanh Province 12°53.8’ 109°27.2’ At Ong Can Islet, Phu Khanh Province 13°54.0’ 109°21.0’ At Ly Son Islet, Nghia Binh Province 15°23.1' 109° 9.0' At Con Co Island, Binh Tri Thien Province 17°10.0' 107°20.6' https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/299/text I have asked many BWN vets at another site ( American Legion HR 299 comment thread) to join us.
  21. Just to add- I often give advice based on my own experiences. When I filed my Nehmer AO IHD claim,as a survivor of a AO veteran, I also referred the Nehmer RO to 2 CUEs I had pending at the Buffalo RO- one pending since 2003 and one pending since 2004,both based on a 1998 decision ,that also contained one or two addition CUEs -that have been awarded. I stated to the Nehmer VARO that these CUEs were filed long before my AO IHD death claim and were contingent on a proper resolve of the AO IHD claim and I felt they should be addressed. The Phila RO awarded them both and then awarded the AO IHD claim. So I see no problem in filing both claims above that you have -(a re open and a CUE) separately but at the same time.
  22. To VARO C file # This is a Claim of Clear and Unmistakable Errors in(CUE) in your recent ( date of decision) under auspices of 38 USC 5109. This is a violation§ 4.6 Evaluation of evidence. The element of the weight to be accorded the character of the veteran's service is but one factor entering into the considerations of the rating boards in arriving at determinations of the evaluation of disability. Every element in any way affecting the probative value to be assigned to the evidence in each individual claim must be thoroughly and conscientiously studied by each member of the rating board in the light of the established policies of the Department of Veterans Affairs to the end that decisions will be equitable and just as contemplated by the requirements of the law. 38 CFR 4.6 I have enclosed a copy of your 1990 decision. I had NO pre existing conditions, prior to service. The VA has no proof of ANY pre existing condition prior to my service. (state the actual statement from the decision here on that) CUE Violation of 38 CFR 4.6 My claim was for a proper service connection of my TMJ (Bruxism) that was due to inservice trauma. My SMRs, as enclosed , reveal that I had this condition in service.I have highlighted those copies that show evidence of the TMJ.Additional Violation of 38 CFR 4.6. The denial had a manifested outcome to me because it was not based on evidence in VA’s possession at time of the denial. I continue to have this ratable disability. The VA failed to consider probative “elements “ in my SMRs,and I request an equitable decision. Exhibits: Respectfully, 1990 VA decision ( Pages) SMRS Describe briefly each SMR you are enclosing( pages) Total the enclosures. I have also enclosed an addition claim, both are contingent on service connected proper TMJ ratings. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Make sure your C file #, name and address are on every enclosure. You will probably have to file this on the new claim forms, just like a regular new claim.21-256-others can opine on that and the new claims forms. Send this to where you are directed on the new forms. Sign it , copy it for your records, and send it via USPS Priority with a tracking slip. In the meantime I suggest that you ask the dentist who treats you if they would be willing to prepare an IME. If so, the IME can be brief and tell them that this is a known medical situation ( TMJ) Bruxism) in anyone who has experienced trauma.They can bolster that by referring to your SC disability of PTSD. They also (you can do this for them) can ask VA to refer to many medical abstracts and articles on the internet that support the Nexus, and enclose those articles with their opinion. If your TMJ is SCed due to the CUE , it might reveal either “0” SC or a low rating. I don’t know what the rating should be, but you may not even need the IME- it is just something to think about. I also suggest, as vetquest did, that you re-open the claim ( using a separate claim form) as suggested here. Send them the same SMR evidence and refer them to the CUE claim,stating it is contingent on a proper service connected award. If you get a SC rating for that now, that will bolster your CUE, if they handle the re open first. One of the BVA decisions I posted here for you was awarded to the veteran, who did not have a IME but presented numerous medical abstracts and articles that supported the nexus to his TMJ. You might not need an IME. He didn't. Also I suggest you go to our VA Schedule of Ratings here in a separate forum to see what ratings you can expect.
  23. Not only are some of these questions from newbees breezed over too fast, they often need valid advice , yet the whole appeal rigamorole advice and the "get a lawyer" stuff crops up right away. There is a new member whose question I had to read a few times-a few minutes ago ,but that is more times than the VA reads our stuff..... If we are truly trying to be good advocates ( I am disabled too) we have to be more careful. I appreciate that someone mentioned the fact that I provide links to support my replies, but all takes time, and I know those lonks often don't get read. This week I have considerable farm and home things to do, and have to go to Bath NY 3 times.... a half hour to and back due to farm equipment sometimes on the roads- so I hope this week you all will try- if you do reply, to read the newbee stuff more carefully and give them some positive suggestions, instead of telling them they need a lawyer- when they really dont----worse yet , when they are told to appeal right away- but they might have a 3.156 or basis for CUE instead. Some posts are confusing to read but if you spend time re reading the post ,it will become clear.
  24. This case is a beauty: It popped up in mere seconds, at the BVA https://www.va.gov/vetapp19/files4/19129046.txt The veteran mentioned the known medical nexus between TMJ ( bruxism) and PTSD. In part: "During the appeal period, the Veteran has continued to report the same jaw symptoms which were the basis of the 2012 bruxism/TMJ diagnosis. See February 2016 notice of disagreement and January 2018 substantive appeal. His statements describing his jaw symptoms are not only competent but also credible. Moreover, the Board finds the 2016 private dental opinion to be the most probative evidence of record addressing a causal link between the Veteran’s current bruxism/TMJ and his PTSD because such opinion is factually accurate and contains sound reasoning. The opinion was based on the dental examination findings and the reports of the Veteran experiencing jaw symptoms, particularly during times of increased stress. This private dental opinion coupled with the Veteran’s competent and credible reports of fluctuating symptoms of continued jaw clenching and pain, particularly in times of stress, supports a finding that the Veteran’s bruxism/TMJ is, at the very least, exacerbated by his service-connected PTSD. Thus, service connection for bruxism/TMJ is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 3.310." Some vets might need a IMO/IME from their dentist but there is so much medical info that provides the nexus, a vet should not need an IMO/IME- it all depends on what the C & P exam reveals. The pre existing BS.... https://www.hillandponton.com/va-said-condition-preexisted-service-now/
  25. When the VA gave you 70%, were you working then? Or if not, and they knew that, did they send you a TDIU form? TDIU pays at the 100% rate. Can you scan and attach here the 1990 decision.Cover your C file # and name prior to scanning it. We need to see their rationale for the denial as well as the evidence list.It is always possible they committed a CUE. I assume you have PTSD that warrants the 70%? TMJ is often due to PTSD or any anxiety disorder. I posted a winning claim on that here some time ago, we have a few TMJ vets here. You said this and that in my opinion is probably VA BS in 99% of the time. The VA has to PROVE you had a pre existing condition prior to your service. I am a Cuerino and will be able to see if the older decision holds a CUE, in addition to the statement below. " I only mention it because 1990 decision states in absence of trauma in service..I was basically born defective with TMJ which is a lie."
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines