Berta

sorry cloud and weather affecting my PC-I see you are 50% for Migraines. 2 50s, one 70% and 10% HBP = 90% ??? Doe that make sense to anyone here?

I dont understand your question.Or the vet rep advice. You are already service connected for the sinuses. "The highest rating awarded for any type of Chronic Sinusitis is 50%. You'd have to combine it with other ratings such as PTSD, sleep apnea, or asthma to increase your rating.Sep 30, 2019" https://www.woodslawyers.com/chronic-sinusitis-va-benefits/#:~:text=The highest rating awarded for,asthma to increase your rating. Does your vet rep feel the HBP rating should be higher? Wht is the rating for the migraines? Is it possible your 70% PTSD could be raised to 100%. I imagine all of the disabilities you have could impact your PTSD. "With the 100 percent combined disability rating, you do not have any restrictions on work activity. If you meet the 100 percent rating for your service-connected condition, and you are still able to work, then you may do so." https://vetsguardian.com/working-with-a-100-va-rating/ I always think of Lewis Puller ( Chesty's son) multiple disabilites to include PTSD, as well a Max Clelland former VA Secretary, who also sufferd from multiple SC disabilities and worked.He had a documentary done on how it took him 2 hour to get rady for work at the VA every day. He also talked about his PTSD. I have no idea if they had formal VA 100% awards but certainly could have been granted a high level of service connection. Lewis woked as a VA Central lawyer for years and won a Pulitzer Prize for his Autobiography until he ended his life. I have dealth witth PTSD vets since 1983- as a VA Vet center volunteer and I married a PTSD vet ( 100% P & T SC ) and have never found PTSD to infringe on any PTSD vet's intellect. You can still work with a 100% rating, but I am baffled here as to how you can get the rating that high- The highest rating for migraines is here: https://www.hillandponton.com/how-the-va-rates-migraine-headaches/

I strongly suggest that you ( better yet that she ) should contact the VA Office of Survivors: https://www.wehonorveterans.org/benefits/survivor-benefits/ Their contact info is in this link. About 2 years ago a new member here , a widow of a vet who was living in Europe did not receive her DIC check and was desparate because she had to pay her rent with it. It seemed that the State Department and Consulate was not helpful but I belieeve this office is the one that helped her get the check.

PS, this is funny now but the VA ,when my daughter applied for DEA, she was only awarded one month of DEA when the regulations, right on the application , and her DD 214 showed she should have received DEA for 7 year ( due to her 7 years of military service.(Chapter 35 award from her deceased father) Mommy prepared a CUE for her to sign and send to VA Edu and they reversed the award to 7years.... in 3 weeks. (VA EDU is an oxymoron sometimes) She was so fed up that she paid for her own education and received many college credits from the USAF towards her degrees.

Pwrslm, I agree with you completely. I was so ticked off I emailed Secretary McDonough: Denis.McDonough@va.gov. What gets me is that we, as advocates, are performing a "Duty to assist" all the time, by trying to help veterans and their survivors access the evidence they needed, because the VA often fails in it's Duty to Assist - and if was great to be able to find with the former search feature at BVA , similar claims- that are onlyspecific to the claimant, yet contain the legal and medical ways those claims succeeded. Pwrslm I certainly appreciate how much you are always trying to help vets here!!!!! You deal with enough yourself and yet you encourage so many here to get through the ridiculous VA claims process. It is overwhelming and frustrating and I have said here many times- if you dont have PTSD, the VA claims process will give it to you. My daughter, home on leave from the military read a decision I just received. Although they listed all of evidence, they didnt use it and she said Mom it is obvious the VA Cant read! That was around 1998- and they still can't read! But that is a problem prevalent at the VARO level, because the BVA loves evidence and they are quite capable of being literate with very few decisions that are overtuured by the claimant themselves or by the US CAVC. I told the Sec I would call th WH Hot Line if there is no reply from him. And to look for a letter from me soon- as to 2 ways the VA could actually make the claim process a little better. My last letter to a VA secretary (DDr Shulkin) got results but it took me many edits to make it concise and to send him the evidence needed to support my position. Thanks again for helping here so much-our nation's disabled vets need all the help they can get. The BVA used to put the name of the VARO, and the vetern's POA vet org or lawyer- they often do not do that anymore. Also they used to identify the exact independent doctor's name whose IMO/IME fully granted the claim. Ten decisions on a search would pop up with many more pages under a search, and although it took time to try to find th best link I could , to put here, the site is no longer as viable as it was. When you could search fo ALL decisions, thi was beneficial to many who needed to know what the regulations and rating criteria was in the past for many disabilities that have had diagnostic code changes as well as different ratings. My AO IHD death claim is a good example. My husband died in 1994 ,and never was diagnosed or trated for IHD but the IHD ratings had changed since tthen and my retro was based on the 1988 lower ratings for ichemic heart disease. 1988 was when he had a heart attack while employed at the VA and they said it was a sinus infection. They admitted they caused his death in 1997 due to "multiple deviations"from a "usual standard of care."

I am mad as Hell!- For decades since the BVA has been on line, I have gone there weekly and often daily to research cases ,enied, remanded or awarded, to post links from those deciion here- as they hold a wealthof information that can help veterans and their surviviors. Yesterday I did resear ther to hlp someonehere at this page: The Board of Veterans’ Appeals has learned that a limited number of Veterans may have had their Board Appeal forms (VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement)) mistakenly rejected for being untimely. Out of an abundance of caution, the Board is sending out a wide notice to help ensure no other Veterans were impacted by this. If you filed a VA Form 10182 with the Board between February 19, 2019, and March 23, 2021, and believe it may have been improperly rejected as untimely, please send a letter to the “Clerk of the Board” at P.O. Box 27063, Washington, DC 20038 or via fax to 1-844-678-8979 no later than March 1, 2022. In your letter, state you are asking the Board to “RECALCULATE TIMELINESS” and be careful to include the Veteran’s full name, claim number or SSN, the date of the rating decision you appealed to the Board, and the date of your original VA Form 10182 appeal form that the Board told you was untimely. Click here for information on delayed notifications Click here for the Board’s response to COVID-19 Interested in a Virtual tele-hearing? Click here What does the Board do? The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) is a part of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), located in Washington, D.C. The Board’s mission is to conduct hearings and decide appeals properly before the Board. [Click Image for Details] [Click Image for Details] The Board Appeals Metrics page is now available with additional details. The link is also available in the Resources links to the right. What is new at the Board? Veterans can now choose where to have their Board hearing! The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) has launched a new virtual tele- hearing option, providing Veterans with the flexibility and convenience of attending Board hearings with Veterans Law Judges (VLJs) and Veteran representatives from a personal computer or mobile device. Virtual tele-hearings are just like video hearings, except the Veteran can participate from their cell phone, tablet, or computer. NO TRAVEL NEEDED! Click here to find out more information and to learn how to sign up for a virtual telehearing! How do I file an appeal? Anyone who is not satisfied with the results of a claim for Veterans, benefits (determined by a VA RO, VHA medical center, or other local VA office) can file an appeal. Click here for instruction on filing an appeal. Why would I file an appeal? If you are not satisfied with your initial claim decision, you have the right to file an appeal. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals will review the evidence presented and issue a decision. Who is my Hearing Coordinator? Here is a list of Hearing Team coordinator points of contact by region. If Veterans, Veteran Service Organizations or Regional Offices have questions about their hearings these are the appropriate people to contact. For general inquiries, please access Appeals Status on VA.gov (information below) or phone 1-800-827-1000. Hearing Coordinators How do I find out the status of my appeal? You can find the status of your appeal by going to va.gov and clicking the sign in box. What is AMA? In 2017 the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) was passed taking effect in February 2019, it is now fully implemented at the Board. AMA created a new decision review process. Under AMA Veterans can choose from three lanes to determine the path their appeal will follow. The three lanes to choose from are; supplemental claim, higher-level review, and appealing to the Board of Veterans Appeals. The below graphic can help you decide which is the best lane for you. [Click here for Details] What happens during your Board Hearing? [Click here for hearing video] "Board of Veterans’ Appeals Organizational Chart Additional information about the VA Appeals Status Tool New VA Appeals Status Tool Provides Tracking and Transparency for Veterans VA Appeals Status Tool Video VA Appeals Status Tool Press Release Appeals Status on VA.gov Veteran’s Rights Your Rights to Appeal our Decision RESOURCES Board of Veterans' Appeals Home Page Appeals Metrics Customer Service Chairman's Annual Reports to Congress Quarterly Reports Military Spouse Employment Frequently Asked Questions VA Forms Board Hearings Search Decisions: https://www.bva.va.gov/ to do research I have done there THOUSANDS of Times! The page has changed to this! https://search.usa.gov/search?affiliate=bvadecisions "Search All Years Search 2021 Search 2020 More Filters and Result Count Enter your search term Search results Please enter a search term in the box above." The Search All years button does not seem to work and this change is the most detrimental change to veteran's advocacy I have seen in years! I am unwilling to try to access the new search feature because it is by year and the search area does not seem to be as effective as the older one was.And it ill be for more time consuming then it used to be. I am going to complain to the BVA ( if I can even contact them) and if not I will call the WH Hot Line. This might not matter to many here but in addition to the VBM from NVLSP evereything else I have learned about claims is from the BVA decisions. Unlike many RO decisions we get, the BVA CAN READ and are usually always correct on their decisions. I have carpal tunnel synrome as well-and that makes research more difficult for me these days - and maybe others here will be willing to research BVA decisions that can help veterans here or their survivors. There site was perfect as it was, but like everything else, it seems someone decided it was not good enough and made it worse. I hope they dont screw around with US CAVC site.

Can you clarify this: " I am a 90% rated veteran with PTSD, chronic sinuses, and migraines as well as HBP." Are you service connected for the sinuses already? If not did the sinus problems start after the OSA diagnosis? Can you tell us the breakdown of the 90%? Ar you unemployed and if so, do you receive SSDI for any of the service connected conditions above? Also is it possible you havesinitu from Burn pits? The criteria for this new regulation establishing presumpive is explained in these links: https://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=5699 https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/burnpits/index.asp Also I posted Maps here as to the expanded definition of Persian Gulf War veterans. If we now where you served and when we can help more- Have you be denied for the sinus issue, or the HBP, or the migraines? You stated: "I am told by the AL representative that the opinion, if accepted by the VA would result in an award that takes me to 100%." Any independent medical opinion ( and plenty of veterans need to get them) must folow the IMO criteria here at hadit. This is an older thrad but still contains a lot of info on IMO/IMEs- an IME is an inperson exam evaluation, sometimes required by the independent doctor. https://community.hadit.com/topic/53826-read-first-if-getting-an-imo/

This member here got his sleep apnea service connected to his PTSD: "After Denials for OSA both direct and secondary to PTSD, this spring I decided to spend the money on a IMO and do the claim right. I contacted Dr. Anaise and was told to send all my records, decision letters and $1500. After about a week I was emailed with a final IMO report that was around 40-50 pages. It was excellent & well researched. Within 6 weeks of submitting the IMO with a supplemental claim OSA secondary to PTSD was approved. Yes IMO's dont guarantee anything and they can be expensive but they are definitely worth it when you have been denied already and have nothing else to submit and someone like Dr. Anaise will always outweight the NP the VA usually has doing exams." https://community.hadit.com/topic/79792-david-anaise-md-for-osa-secondary-to-ptsd/ ----- This BVA vet also got his OSA service connected to PTSDwith 2 independent medical opinions. https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files8/20054797.txt This is a more recent BVA opinion: "ORDER Entitlement to service connection for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), secondary to service-connected sinusitis, on a causation basis, is granted." The veteran had many VA opinions against the claim, but also a strong medical opinion from a VA doctor, that gave a very supportive rationale to award the claim. https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files11/a20017617.txt Nothing is Impossible but it often takes astrong iMO/IME from a doctor whose expertise is greater than the C & P doctor's and who can give a full medical rationale as well as excerpts from treatices and abstracts that medically support the claim. Many of us here, knowing we had a very solid claim had to obtain IMO/IMEs anyhow-and it was the best investment many of us could make...often easily absorbed- cost wise, by some retro we would have never received without the IMO/IME.

There is not really enough info here to opine on your question. If you have incurred a continuous disabiity , and have subsequent treatment records from this specific accident and can prove the nexus to your service, ( such as it was treated as noted, in your SMRs) you should file a claim for it. It should also be listed on your discharge certificate and/or there might be proof of the accident in your military personnel file. We have no idea when this swing ladder accident occured and that too is a factor when the VA gets claims like this.

To add- if you have received an award on an AO claim, to include a Blue Water Navy Agent Orange award and you feel your EED is not correct, per Footnote One , contact: Toll-Free Phone Number: 855-333-0677Email: agentorange@nvlsp.org Many of us here had NVLSP review our AO award letters to make sure Footnote one and all other provisions of the EED under Nehmer were correctly applied.

I bumped up this topic many times and it still is a viable one- I hope none of your spouses ever need to read it but, as I mention in the many pages of discussion, in the thread ,DIC can be a Very complex issue. Vet reps and VSO get far more veteran claims than DIC claims, so they have to be up to speed as well as everyone here, on the DIC regulations. A Nehmer death claim is different and I have posted considerable info on that here already, over the years.

Bumping this all up again. DIC can be a Very complex issue. Make sure your spouse is up to speed on the PC and can gethere under your password if the time comes that they need DIC help. And make sure they understand your SC diabilities too. Plenty of DIC claims get denied -so if you have VA life insurance or any private life insurance make sure the wife knows they might need some of the insurance proceeds to pay for a strong IMO , if needed. I some of the BVA DIC denials, it appeared that the surviving spouse did nothing effective to support their claim and unless a ten year continuous 100% P & T, at death, those claims might never succeed.

It is difficult to determine what a living veteran will die from and often it is the cause of death on the death certificate that reveals the exact cause of death. Thiese are the regulations for DIC: "Am I eligible for VA DIC as a surviving spouse or dependent? As a surviving spouse Eligibility You may be eligible for VA benefits or compensation if you meet these requirements. One of these must be true: You lived with the Veteran or service member without a break until their death, or If you’re separated, you weren’t at fault for the separation And one of these must be true: You married the Veteran or service member within 15 years of their discharge from the period of military service during which the qualifying illness or injury started or got worse, or You were married to the Veteran or service member for at least 1 year, or You had a child with the Veteran or service member Note: If you remarried, you can receive or continue to receive compensation if one of these describes you: You remarried on or after December 16, 2003, and you were 57 years of age or older at the time you remarried, or You remarried on or after January 5, 2021, and you were 55 years of age or older at the time you remarried Evidence You’ll need to provide evidence with your claim showing that one of these descriptions is true for the Veteran or service member. Evidence may include documents like military service records, doctor’s reports, and medical test results. Provide evidence showing that one of these is true: The service member died while on active duty, active duty for training, or inactive-duty training, or The Veteran died from a service-connected illness or injury, or The Veteran didn’t die from a service-connected illness or injury, but was eligible to receive VA compensation for a service-connected disability rated as totally disabling for a certain period of time If the Veteran’s eligibility was due to a rating of totally disabling, they must have had this rating: For at least 10 years before their death, or Since their release from active duty and for at least 5 years immediately before their death, or For at least 1 year before their death if they were a former prisoner of war who died after September 30, 1999 Note: “Totally disabling” means the Veteran’s injuries made it impossible for them to work." https://www.va.gov/disability/dependency-indemnity-compensation/ I can undertand your concerns because your husband has many serious disabilities that have been service connected and any one of them could cause or substantially contribute to death. As I understand this he will satisfy the 10 year requirement in 2027 and all of the other cancers ciuld have been secondary to or caused by the 2017 cancer that was service connected, as many SC cancers can metastize. I dont understad the post as to the 8 year provision. I think you mean this regulation: " If this description is true… You may qualify for this benefit Added monthly amount (in U.S. $) The Veteran had a VA disability rating of totally disabling (including for individual unemployability) for at least the 8 full years leading up to their death, and You were married to the Veteran for those same 8 years 8-year provision 305.28 " https://www.va.gov/disability/survivor-dic-rates/ However that provision rests on obtaining a direct service connected death.

https://community.hadit.com/topic/85442-nehmer-footnote-one-agent-orange-claims/ There are about ten pages here of different discussions of Footnote One. The favorable AO EED only kicks in, only if the same AO disability was rated and deemed NSC in a past VA decision. Nehmer claims falling under Footnote One ( not all of them do) are different then all other laims when it comes to the EED. I think I posted my AO IHD death claim as an example many times here but I was a "should have been coded" Nehmer claimant. We have had many vets here who received very favorable EEDs on their Nehmer claims. The BVA states the regulation this way: "Generally, the effective date of an award of service connection granted pursuant to a liberalizing law or VA administrative issue is the effective date of the liberalizing law or administrative issue, if the claim is received within one year after such date. Thus, under the provisions for liberalizing laws, awards based on presumptive service connection established under the Agent Orange Act of 1991 ordinarily cannot be made effective earlier than the date VA issued the regulation authorizing the presumption. Id. Notably, ischemic heart disease was included as a presumptive Agent Orange disease under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e), which was made effective by VA as of August 31, 2010. Ischemic heart disease includes, "but is not limited to" several conditions, including coronary artery disease. Id. However, Federal Court orders have created an exception to the generally applicable rules in 38 U.S.C. § 5110(g) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.114, which were later incorporated into a final regulation, 38 C.F.R. § 3.816, that became effective on September 24, 2003. See Nehmer v. United States Veterans Admin., 712 F. Supp. 1404, 1409 (N.D. Cal. 1989) (Nehmer I). That regulation defines a "Nehmer class member" to include a Veteran who has, or died from, a covered herbicide disease, as here. 38 C.F.R. § 3.816 (b)(1)(i), (b)(2)(i). The holdings in the Nehmer cases established an exception to 38 C.F.R. § 5110(g), in that "Nehmer class members" could be assigned earlier effective dates than the date of the law and regulations that established presumptive service connection for a "covered herbicide disease." See 38 C.F.R. § 3.816(c)(2); see also Nehmer v. United States Veterans Administration , 32 F. Supp. 2d. 1175 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (Nehmer II); Nehmer v. Veterans Administration of the Government of the United States, 284 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2002) (Nehmer III). The regulation provides for situations where the effective date can be earlier than the date of the liberalizing law, assuming a "Nehmer class member" has been granted compensation from a covered herbicide disease. Either (1) VA denied compensation for the same covered herbicide disease in a decision issued between September 25, 1985 and May 3, 1989; or (2) the class member's claim for disability compensation for the covered herbicide disease was either pending before VA on May 3, 1989, or was received by VA between May 3, 1989 and the effective date of the statute or regulations establishing a presumption of service connection for the covered disease. In these situations, the effective date of the award will be the later of the date such claim was received by VA or the date the disability arose, whichever is later. 38 C.F.R. § 3.816 (c)(1), (c)(2)." https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/files8/a21013050.txt

In my recent thread here, I found 2 more MG awards: https://community.hadit.com/topic/31786-myasthenia-gravis-and-agent-orange/#comment-515916 "What remains is the nexus between the Agent Orange exposure during service in Vietnam and the currently diagnosed myasthenia gravis. The testimony from the private doctors weighs in support of such nexus of current disability to service. In May 4, 2016, Dr. K. wrote that there is a known correlation between exposure to Agent Orange and autoimmune disease. July 2016, Dr. A. wrote a letter that talks about causation for myasthenia gravis and states that there is “a strong relationship between [Agent Orange] exposure and the development of human autoimmune and neurological disorder,” noting that myasthenia gravis is an autoimmune neuromuscular disorder. In April 2017, Dr. S. wrote that there is a known correlation between exposure to [Agent Orange] and autoimmune disease and stated his opinion that prolonged exposure in Vietnam to Agent Orange is the cause of the Veteran’s myasthenia gravis. In July 2019, Dr. A. described the causation of myasthenia gravis, prescribing the scientific mechanism of how an environmental agent transforms normal cellular function into abnormal autoimmune cellular disease like myasthenia gravis. Dr. A stated that it is his professional opinion that the exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam is more likely than not the direct cause of his diagnosis of myasthenia gravis. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that the nexus requirement is met to warrant service connection for myasthenia gravis." 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files2/20013838.txt In the second link I posted, the veteran had a strong independent medical opinion as well- "In contrast, a private physician in an August 2020 correspondence noted that the Veteran had no other risk factors that may have directly precipitated his myasthenia gravis which resulted in thymoma. The physician opined that the Veteran's myasthenia gravis which resulted in thymoma was directly precipitated by is in-service herbicide exposure as Agent Orange was a known risk factor for myasthenia gravis." https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/files7/21046990.txt It is my strong belief after being involved in the AO issue since 1991 ( my husband and I ,as his widow ,were in the original AO Settlement Fund) ,that any disability not on the AO presumptive list would need a strong independent medical opinion, to establish a nexus, assuming the veteran had proven exposure to AO. Also Myasthenia gratis is a Chronic Presumptive under 38 CFR 3.309 (to include 38 CFR 3.307) as I also posted here recently. Chronic presumptives should never be overlooked when filing claims.

Tbird- A new member, D Evans posted a few hours ago, some myasthenia gravis BVA awards- but then a 2010 post popped up-next- I just felt D Evans' post would be overlooked- but maybe not- I think this happens when a member might post a reply on the wrong page of the thread. I guess there is nothing to fix- thanks anyhow! Also, to add myastheia graves is also a "presumptive" under the Chronic disabilities , which are different from presumptive AO disabilities. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.309 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.307- contains the criteria needed for 3.309 to kick in. "(3) Chronic disease. The disease must have become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within 1 year (for Hansen's disease (leprosy) and tuberculosis, within 3 years; multiple sclerosis, within 7 years) from the date of separation from service as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section." https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.307

Good Advice!!!!! Congrats on the award as you have gotten a foot in the door!

https://community.hadit.com/topic/31786-myasthenia-gravis-and-agent-orange/page/4/ Although myasthenia graves is not directy presumptive to AO,some vets have succeeded with these claims. I think it is an important issue because exposure to AO has probably caused many more disabilities than are on the presumpive list....such as HBP (NAS IOM report available in our AO forum) Many of these myathenia gravis claims at the BVA have been denied right off the bat, but many also have been remanded, a in this widow' case: "The Board finds that the evidence of record is insufficient to determine whether the Veteran served within the 12-nautical-mile territorial sea of Vietnam. On remand, additional development is necessary to make this factual determination. Further, assuming that the evidence establishes service within the 12-nautical-mile territorial sea of Vietnam, the criteria for McLendon will have been met. And as a result, the Board cannot make a fully informed decision on the issue of entitlement to service connection for the Veteran’s cause of death because no VA examiner has opined whether the Veteran’s cause of death was related to service. Remand is thus required to correct these pre-decisional duty to assist errors." https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files9/a20014193.txt The widow, if she can prove the vetera is a Blue Water AO 12 Mile limit Navy veteran, also will need a very strong independent medical opinion, but nothing is impossible. "pre-decisional duty to assist errors" - yeah the VA makes plenty of them and they can hold up a proper decision for Decades! I had to fight over a major DTA error many years ago-as my so called state reps ( to inlude their state Director,) insisted in writing to me that I was wrong. That's OK - The BVA granted the claim but acknowledged my DTA error had been mitigated by me,by supplying the evidence the proper DTA etter would have advised to do. I made quite a stink over what happened to me, and the Director was suddenly removed and the other reps who tries to convince me I was wrong, are gone, one being demoted immediately from his management position. Make sure your spouses have your hadit password, if you die. And are up to speed on the PC ad your medical issues. This is why many claimants need strong representation and why they sure might need a lawyer's help.

This thread has had a recent reply but is all out of order. I have found two more fairly recent BVA decisions that award service connection due to Agent Orange for myasthenia gravis "ORDER Service connection for myasthenia gravis is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran is diagnosed with myasthenia gravis. 2. The Veteran was exposed to Agent Orange while serving in Vietnam. 3. The Agent Orange exposure caused the myasthenia gravis. " https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files2/20013838.txt "FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran was exposed to herbicides agents while serving in Vietnam. 2. The Veteran has malignant thymoma that is related to his in-service herbicide exposure during his active military service. As reflected above, the August 2020 VA examiner specifically noted that the Veteran had no other risk factors besides Agent Orange for the development of his myasthenia gravis. As a result, the Board finds that there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the question of whether the Veteran has a current thymoma disability that is a result of his in-service herbicide exposure." https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/files7/21046990.txt

Also-are any of your disabilities on the AO presumptive list- if not, those claims will need a strong IMO/IME- independent medical opinion. The most recent AO presumptives are searchable here. A lawyer wil needto see copies of all of your decisions. What was the December 2020 100% for? Did you file a NOD in time if you disagreed with the decision?

This is one of your posts from 2018: It does give the exception they used under the Privacy Act. Did you seek a lawyer in 2018 as Broncovet advised? I have not read all of this post or your other posts yet-but you seem to feel your disabilities are from Agent Orange exposure. Did you file under that basis? Did you also file a timely SF95 for what you felt was malpractice? You mentioned the VA lies. I certainly can relate to that- they lied to me multiple times and that is how I won a wrongful death case against them, because tthe medical records revealed how they lied, and the evidence from my FTCA wrongful death case was important to me subsequent accrued benefits due to Agent Orange. I am angry that the VA lies to veterans and their survivor, but anger to me means to take Action by proving they lied and how the medical consequences of that caused you disability. EED, 38 CFR 3.156 and CUE is searchable here -with lots of info on that.

Did you request those records under FOIA 552, or under the Privacy Act, 552? What of these 9 Exceptions to FOIA requests, were given to you for them to not release the records you need? "Not all records are required to be released under the FOIA. Congress established nine exemptions from disclosure for certain categories of information to protect against certain harms, such as an invasion of personal privacy, or harm to law enforcement investigations. The FOIA authorizes agencies to withhold information when they reasonably foresee that disclosure would harm an interest protected by one of these nine exemptions. The nine exemptions are described below. Exemption 1: Information that is classified to protect national security. Exemption 2: Information related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency. Exemption 3: Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law. Exemption 4: Trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is confidential or privileged. Exemption 5: Privileged communications within or between agencies, including those protected by the: Deliberative Process Privilege (provided the records were created less than 25 years before the date on which they were requested) Attorney-Work Product Privilege Attorney-Client Privilege Exemption 6: Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual’s personal privacy. Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that: 7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings 7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication 7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy 7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source 7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law 7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual Exemption 8: Information that concerns the supervision of financial institutions. Exemption 9: Geological information on wells." https://www.foia.gov/faq.html It seems you are seeking more retro- " I need an honest lawyer that will take my case which would go back to my April 1983 claim, almost 39 years of 100% retropay. I was denied, as well as my kids were denied all compensation & pension because I was still ill at discharge. " I dont understand the part about the kids being denied comp or pension, but in any event, Did you appeal the denial of the FOIA? Or if this was filed under the Privacy Act, why did they deny the request? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a I have stated thi many times here over the years- maybe it bears repeating- if a claimant wants to get a copy of their VA medical Records, they should use the Privacy Act ,552, to bolster their request-because if they use FOIA instead. that will add a lot of time to the request- FOIA is different from the Privacy Act. I have had plenty of experience with both requests....one FOIA I sent to the US Drug Administration took years to be fulfilled.By then I had already won the claim and didnt need their info anymore. Veterans have succeeded in gaining more retro by challenging the EED VA gave them (EED Earliest effective date) often due to filing a CUE on the decison they feel is wrong or by using 38 CFR 3.156: https://cck-law.com/veterans-law/earlier-va-effective-date-of-disability/ CCK is one of the best vet law firms around. There are more here: https://www.google.com/search?q=Lawyers+who+help+vets+with+claims&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS695US695&oq=Lawyers+who+help+vets+with+claims&aqs=chrome..69i57j46i199i433i465i512j0i131i433j46i199i291i433i512l3j46i199i465i512j46i199i291i512.10422j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

He is in Betheda, MD but it doesn't matter where the claimant lives-unless he needs to do an inperson IME. https://veteransmedadvisor.com/ (West of Syracuse- do you deal with the incompetent Buffalo VARO?) I say that from personal experience, yet my neighbor filed in June and got an award in about 4 months from Buffalo.So they do have competent people there as well. He has been bugging me for how to get more retro- but over the past 20 years I urged him to file for higher rating many times and he never would.

I have conversed from time to time via email with a disabled vet friend from the older hadit web site and I recommended Dr Bash to him-probably over ten years ago and he finally got a GREAT award from the BVA: He wrote: " Thanks to you, my dear friend, and your recommendation years ago to hire Dr. Craig Bash for an IMO made this decision possible. In fact, I had (3) IMO's done by Dr. Bash" : " ORDER Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for left knee chondromalacia is denied. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for instability of the left knee is denied. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, to include as secondary to service-connected obstructive and restrictive pulmonary disease with sleep apnea, is granted. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as secondary to service-connected obstructive and restrictive pulmonary disease with sleep apnea and /or his now service-connected diabetes mellitus is granted. Entitlement to service connection for renal nephropathy, to include as secondary to service-connected obstructive and restrictive pulmonary disease with sleep apnea and/or his now service-connected diabetes mellitus, is granted. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral upper extremity peripheral neuropathy, to include as secondary to service-connected obstructive and restrictive pulmonary disease with sleep apnea and/or his now service-connected diabetes mellitus, is granted. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, to include as secondary to service-connected obstructive and restrictive pulmonary disease with sleep apnea and /or his now service-connected diabetes mellitus, is granted. Entitlement to special monthly compensation(SMC) for loss of use of a creative organ is granted. Entitlement to compensation for obstructive and restrictive pulmonary disease under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 1151 is moot and dismissed. Entitlement for compensation for chronic kidney dysfunction under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 1151 is moot and dismissed." Some denials and some good remands, that's right folks- you aren't reading this wrong- "Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as secondary to service-connected obstructive and restrictive pulmonary disease with sleep apnea and /or his now service-connected diabetes mellitus is granted. Entitlement to service connection for renal nephropathy, to include as secondary to service-connected obstructive and restrictive pulmonary disease with sleep apnea and/or his now service-connected diabetes mellitus, is granted. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral upper extremity peripheral neuropathy, to include as secondary to service-connected obstructive and restrictive pulmonary disease with sleep apnea and/or his now service-connected diabetes mellitus, is granted. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, to include as secondary to service-connected obstructive and restrictive pulmonary disease with sleep apnea and /or his now service-connected diabetes mellitus, is granted. Entitlement to special monthly compensation(SMC) for loss of use of a creative organ is granted." "The Board in their decision wrote, " The Veteran underwent a December 2011 evaluation by a private physician (Dr. Bash). He opinioned that it was at leasts likely as not that the Veteran's diabetes mellitus was secondary to his mixed lung disease. The examiner then provided his rationale for his opinion. In providing his opinion the examiner stated he was considering the Veteran's lay statements and the objective findings/imaging tests/diagnoses. The private physician noted some medical studies. His curriculum vitae was attached. This examination and opinion were supported by medical evidence and were completed following a review of the record and evaluation of the Veteran." Nothing is impossible but if often takes a strong IMO/IME to get a proper decision. And sometimes we ned to take thebull by the horns! This vet called the White House Hot line because of the delay in this remanded claim - the BVA then made the decision on the same day! Nov 30,2021 He has been through quite a bit but never gave up and , like my 2 IMOs from Dr.Bash, for the most important claim I ever had- ( undiagnosed and untreated DMII from AO causing/contributing to deat a Direct SC death award) Dr Bash did an excellent and thorough job in helping this veteran and friend I have from the older hadit board.We both dealt with the same VARO and they cant read. "Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, to include as secondary to service-connected obstructive and restrictive pulmonary disease with sleep apnea, is granted." I am repeating this statement because it is incredible and Dr Bash obviously gave a full medical rationale for the nexus. DMII can cause a myraid of other secondary disabilities and many are very serious! Dr. Bash also found my dead husband had two other secondary's due too his undiagnosed diabetes mellitus that I have not even claimed yet-maybe I will. A good IMO/IME doctor, like Dr Craig Bash, will give your medical records the most complete review they will ever get, in my opinion, and he might even discover 1151 issues or issues that could be secondary but were never claimed and the IMO/IME might also support a new claim for those secondarys. .

You are referring to a Motion To Revise a BVA decision, by alleging CUE in a BVA decision. Most of the CUE claims we see here involve a CUE at the Regional Office Level. "dismissed without prejudice" means just that- if the claimant shapes the CUE ,following the CUE criteria , they can re -file the CUE claim at the VARO level ,if the RO made the CUE or file a Motion to Revise, at the BVA level based on a BVA decision. Both Motion to Revise and CUE on VARO decisions are explained in our CUE forum. ORDER The motion to revise a February 11, 2020, Board decision on the basis of clear and unmistakable error (CUE) is dismissed without prejudice to refiling. https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files8/20051364.txt https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/files5/21030629.txt In part: "Each of the Damrel elements is therefore satisfied. The June 1986 Board decision is therefore revised to reflect that the termination of the Veteran's permanent and total disability rating for pension purposes was not proper. The CUE motion is granted." https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/files5/21030629.txt I suggest anyone seeking detainled info on CUE, searchable here, should acquire the Veterans Benefits Manual by NVLSP and also study the many BVA decisions on CUE at the BVA web site. The VBM is available at amazon.com at low prices for older used copies of it. CUE regulations have never changed since I purchased the first VBM in 1991. The first CUE I prepared was in 1997 for my daughter, a veteran. All I had access to then was the VBM.The VA versed their decision in 3 weeks. ( A DEA CUE) The BVA web site is free.