Jump to content
  • Searches Community Forums, Blog and more

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'bva'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General VA Disability Compensation Benefits Claims Forums
    • VA Disability Compensation Benefits Claims Research Forum
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Exposed Vet/HadIt.com Podcast
    • Denial Letters
    • Appealing Your Veterans Compensation Disability Claims NOD, DRO, BVA, USCAVC
    • Veterans Compensation & Pension Exams
    • PTSD Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Claims
    • Success Stories
    • TDIU Unemployability Claims
    • E-Benefits Questions
    • Entitlement - Veterans Compensation Benefits Claims
    • Eligibility - Veterans Compensation Benefit Claims
    • SMC Special Monthly Compensation
    • CUE Clear and Unmistakable Error
    • Medication – Prescription Drugs-Health Issues
    • Agent Orange
    • TBI Traumatic Brain Injury
    • MST - Military Sexual Trauma
    • Social Security Disability Questions
    • Vocational Rehabilitation
    • VA Disability Claims Articles and VA News
    • Federal Register Announcements
    • Appeals Modernization Act AMA
    • RAMP Rapid Appeals Modernization Program
    • CHAMPVA
    • OEF/OIF Veterans
    • VA Caregiver Benefits for Post 9/11 Veterans or active duty On or Before May 7, 1975
    • IMO Independent Medical Opinion
    • Veterans Benefits State & Federal
    • VA Medical Centers Navigating through it
    • VA Training & Fast letters, Directives, Regulations, Other Guidance Documents
    • MEB/PEB Physical OR Medical Evaluation Forum
    • VA Regional Offices
  • VA Claims References
  • Specialized Claims
    • Mefloquine / Lariam
    • Gulf War Illness
    • ALS - Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
    • Radiation Exposure from Operation Tomodachi (Japan Earthquake Fukushima Nuclear Assistant)
    • Project SHAD/Project 112
    • VA Pensions
    • DIC
    • FTCA Federal Tort Claims Action
    • 1151 Claims
  • Extras
    • Hiring an Attorney Discussions on S. 3421
    • Coronavirus - COVID-19
    • VA Scandals
    • Discounts for Veterans
    • Title 38 / 38 CFR
    • 38 CFR 3 Adjudication
    • 38 CFR 4 Schedule for Rating Disabilities
    • Active Duty MEB/PEB Physical OR Medical Evaluation Forum
  • Social Chat
  • Veterans Social Chat's Social
  • Veterans Social Chat's Topics

Categories

  • Articles
    • VA Claims
    • Orphan Articles

Product Groups

  • Subscriptions
  • Advertisement

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


GooglePlus


Military Rank


Location


Interests


Service Connected Disability


Branch of Service


Residence


Hobby

  1. Pretty stocked and can't wait to get this info and share it. I recently submitted an iris claim asking about the 10 day policy of waiting after letter is sent with a decision and why they can't make it available online immediately and rationale for their policies etc. I've spoken to 2 people so far at the Peggy line and both have said that they are jealous (one actually is asking to have the info sent to their management team) of the information being put together for me and that they hope I like to read. One told me I better share this info with other veterans as well so my hopes are high for some really great information to share. Hopefully more to come by end of next week at latest.
  2. I want ask if anyone has information or knowledge of a BVA appeal that is out of the 90 day evidence phase, holding up a decision on a claim for an increase on another SC issue? I would like know if I should just wait for the BVA to make it's decision first on the appeal, before I put in for the increase for the separate issue? Forgive me if this is not the right platform for this question. All information is welcome, Thanks.
  3. https://www.federaltimes.com/management/2021/07/13/pandemic-exposed-strain-from-va-benefit-appeals-caseloads/ The amount of problem attorneys at the BVA is shocking. They only have to do two appeals per week?
  4. Ok I found this In the va manual. Note: Prior to enactment of PL 96-12, a Veteran had to be entitled to SMC under 38 U.S.C. 1114(o) in order to establish entitlement to SMC under 38 U.S.C. 1114®(1) and 38 U.S.C. 1114®(2). ok so is this law and why do I see so many denied for not having a smc o. Is pl law binding on va
  5. Did a search and didn't find an answer to this question....but would previous BVA decisions be considered "new" and "relevant" evidence to open up a Supplemental Claim? I thought about just submitting for a HLR but I want these two cases I found that are on point a part of the record. There is no other evidence I am submitting. My argument is the rater did not follow already existing precedent which is what these two BVA cases represent.
  6. Hello, Years ago I filed a claim for a scar from surgery while in service. They granted the scar at 0% . I appealed it saying it was painful and should be rated at 10%. RO denied it so it went to the BVA who remanded it back to RO because the original exam wasn't proper and the VA didn't review records it had that were pertinent to claim. The BVA remand instructions were to review specific records and do a new exam. I had a new exam and later received a letter from RO saying they granted me 10% but the effective date was the date of new exam. They said that is the first diagnosis of scar pain even though my records going back years show me complaining of pain which is why I suspect BVA told them to review those records. The RO decision letter stated the only used the new exam as evidence for their decision. So it went back to the BVA and it seems they made a decision. I'm waiting on the letter but website said they granted my claim and also denied it? Any ideas on how this is possible? I'm hoping it's a grant for earlier effective date and denial of an increase in excess of 10%? Anyone have any ideas on what they would grant and deny same claim?
  7. So a buddy of mine has a claim that was just remand by bva for new exams. So for a month they offer exam 150 miles away. The va hospital is 15 min away smh. So it took them a month to get appoint with the place that does ssi claim exam. I don't like this it seem alot of veteran are get bad exams adding years of appeal time I don't understand the va hospital has ever specialist and has treated most of us all our disabled life. To me this seem like a step to getting rid of the va health system. And to denied more veterans
  8. I asked a similar question some time ago but am confused about something still. I have a BVA hearing waiting to be scheduled for my lower back claim. My original claim was filed as "lower back condition" and denied as "pre-existing scoliosis." My doctor has diagnosed me with DDD. If I want to be rated for DDD and not scoliosis, do I submit a new claim? Or do I submit all evidence to the BVA hearing and tell them I want to be rated for DDD not scoliosis? Thanks
  9. Hi Everyone I logged in today to check the status of my BVA claim and it said "Your regulatory or procedural review – Received March 12, 2021 has been closed as of March 12, 2021". But when I look at the claim it's still open so I called the 1 800 number and the guy acted like he didn't know what that means and told me that I'll be receiving a packet in the mail within 7-10 days. Has anyone seen this before and if so what actually does this mean and thanks in advance for the help and I look forward to your replies.
  10. I appealed my lower back condition (DDD, strain) and am still waiting on a virtual hearing since July 2020. I called and they said they are still on 2019 claims but would not give me any other information. From what I've read on here I'm better off withdrawing my hearing and submitting a supplemental claim with IMOs. I know I would lose the back pay though. Are there any other negatives to withdrawing my hearing? Does anyone have an idea how much longer I'd wait for a hearing? Thanks
  11. Good Morning! I was wondering if anyone can shed light on a BVA status question. My va.gov status has shown “A judge is reviewing your appeal” for a little over one year. I just noticed under Issues it is showing Closed and Granted for 3 of the 4 issues I had filed the claim for, which is wonderful news. Ebenefits is not showing any changes. Does anyone know what to expect next for the 3 that were granted? Since 3 out of 4 were granted, should I expect the 4th issue was remanded? Thank you again so much for all the experience and knowledge this site offers.
  12. Hey all, I have an upcoming BVA hearing in April and I am getting anxious. Despite the strong evidence that I have in my service medical records, VA records, and IME from a board-certified specialist, I feel like I’m still going to be denied service-connection. How did you all get over this feeling? I am an emotional wreck right now, far worse than I was waiting three years ago. Plus, my attorney is going to request waiving the hearing and submitting a written argument. I have a conference call with my attorney in two weeks to go over the written argument, but yet I am still anxious as heck. Also, does anyone know if your claim is Advanced on the Docket, does that also apply to grants or remands by the BVA? Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
  13. I know Hadit cannot address OTH Discharges But my case is different because the BVA decision states I based my claim on the wrong Army Regulation May 1956 instead of April 14, 1959. The Court found for the Boards decision, as this regulation was not before the Board at the time of the decision. I went over all AR'S but could not find this one, I finally found it in the Congressional Record of the 88th Congress 1962. A Department of Defense directive dated 1-14-1959 Which became effective 90 days later on (April 14, 1959)Which cancelled and Superseded all other service regulations on administrative discharges. Stating the definition of what was misconduct and what was Unfitness. I was discharged by the Army under an Army Regulation that had been cancelled 2 years and 11 months before my discharge. I was discharged for a Personality Disorder for Unfitness. The VA found my discharge was for Willful and Persistent misconduct, DOD directive states I should be discharged for unsuitability for further retention in the service due to the diagnosis of a personality disorder. That my Character of service would be based solely on my service records which document no other problems documented by the record. The Courts decision was correct because I was discharged under provisions of DOD directive April 14, 1959, (the CVA upheld the Board decision that I predicated my defense on the wrong army Regulation ) I was discharged on 3-23-1962, under an Army reg that was cancelled 3 years before my discharge under its provisions. The DOD directive is new and material evidence. The CVA decision in reality was favorable to my claim (Which the Court did not mean it to be) What are my options The Board decision was in August 2014 and the CVA decision was in 2016, what are my options and which other VA forms must be filed? I found the DOD directive about 5 months ago! Thank you Dan
  14. https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files1/20000710.txt There are 1954 BVA decisions regarding CUE in 2020 alone. Many were denied, some were re-file-able, "without prejudice "( meaning the claimant needs to perfect the CUE and re file it) and CUE is NOT a one shot deal, as many reps etc try to say, and some certainly were awarded.
  15. Anyone know a good lawyer to contact about representing me for my BVA and maybe CAVC?
  16. I usually review the BVA chairmans report, each time it comes out. (Every year). Why? https://www.bva.va.gov/Chairman_Annual_Rpts.asp 1. It helps me choose "which" appeal method I will use: BVA, HLR, SCL. On page 32, 2019 version, I read that 20.6 percent, overall, of Veterans appeals are denied by the BVA. I already know that about 80 percent of claims are denied at the VARO. So, do you want a 20 percent chance of winning (at the VARO), or an 80 percent chance at the BOARD? 2. It helps me decide whether to hire an attorney or not. If you look, also on Page 32, Attorney represented Vets fare far better than any of the VSO's. Attorney's lose just 13 percent of the time, while Most VSO's are about double that. 3. It answers questions like, "can I appeal a VA life insurance waiver of premium denial". It shows that the Board decided appeals on insurnace and other VA stuff. 4. It helps to find out "how long" I can expect my appeal at the BVA, because it gives time frames. You just need to know where to look.
  17. Hello. A friend of mine has a BVA hearing coming up in Dec. He does not want to travel all the way to Wash DC because of the COVID. What form, if any, should he use to tell the BVA that he will not be able to attend his hearing and that the BVA should decide his appeal without his presence? Thanks in advance for all your help.
  18. I feel like asking the BVA to CUE itself but I dont have a BVA case. There are 3 law judges here . 2 opining on an older NAs report and only one, the third case judge below , knows what he is talking about- as the remand in that third case here calls for the consideration of the 2012 report- Previously the HAS considered a limited and/or suggestive " association of AO to causing HBP- but after the 2010 , they found a "Sufficient" association between AO and HBP In this remand dated 04/28/20 In part it states: "Furthermore, the Board notes that the Veteran has medical trainingIn this remand (dated 04/28/20) "Furthermore, the Board notes that the Veteran has medical training, and new research, memorialized by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS), shows a positive association between hypertension and herbicide exposure in service. However, there is insufficient evidence of record by which the Board can make a decision. The Veteran was not afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his hypertension, and the Board affords the Veteran every benefit of the doubt. As the four McLendon elements are satisfied, the Veteran is entitled to a VA examination and medical opinion." Caroline B. Fleming Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files4/20029600.txt But in this case the BVA stated: "The Board previously denied this claim in a February 2019 decision finding the most persuasive evidence of record did not support a nexus between hypertension and service or his PTSD. With regard to Agent Orange exposure, the Board noted recent NAS findings (the most recent Agent Orange update) indicative of “limited or suggestive” association between hypertension and herbicide exposure, but found such association was not conclusive in this Veteran’s specific case. Rather, according to a June 2018 VA examiner’s opinion and the examiner’s research into the relevant medical literature, a connection between Agent Orange exposure and the development of hypertension would only be possible within individuals in the Army Chemical Corps whom directly handled herbicides. Since the Veteran served as an M-113 armored personal carrier and not in the Army Chemical Corps, the June 2018 VA examiner found a nexus in this case unlikely. The Board denied the claim mainly relying on the June 2018 VA examiner’s opinion." Yet in this case ,the BVA stated: "The February 2019 Board denial was vacated and remanded by virtue of a February 2020 JMR. Therein, the parties agreed that the June 2018 VA examination relied upon by the Board was inadequate. In particular, the parties agreed the matter was previously remanded in September 2015 and again in September 2016 for a VA examiner to specifically consider the 2012 NAS conclusion that found suggestive evidence of an association between herbicide exposure and hypertension notwithstanding that VA has not added hypertension to the list of conditions presumptively associated with Agent Orange exposure. In contrast, the June 2018 VA examiner noted review of the Journal of Occupational Environmental Medicine, but no specific mention or consideration of the NAS Agent Orange update. The examiner found a nexus between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure unlikely because “[e]xposure to herbicides is not presumptive for service connection.” While the examiner noted suggestive data of a connection between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure where a serviceman had more direct handling of herbicides, there is nothing in the VA examination report that indicates the examiner specifically considered the NAS Agent Orange update as directed in two prior Board remands." This case was decided a little over 3 weeks later than the other one I posted first here. SHEREEN M. MARCUS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files5/20032464.txt BUT Yet the two AO Hypertension BVA awards ( maybe there are more by now) clearly refers to (as I did in the accrued claim I have pending) to the most recent AO HBP NAs report which I have posted here in the AO forum months ago: "In the alternative, as explained above, the Veteran is presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange in service and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) moved hypertension from the “limited or suggestive” category and indicated that there is now “sufficient evidence” of an association between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure. See Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 11 (2018). Also, early onset peripheral neuropathy is a disease that is presumed to be associated with herbicide agent exposure. Lastly, the Board has awarded service connection for diabetes mellitus and hypertension and neuropathy are recognized by VA as being potential complications of diabetes." And "The clinician must provide reasons for each opinion given. In this regard, the clinician should address the NAS’s determination that there is now sufficient evidence of an association between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure (See Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 11 (2018)). The fact that hypertension is not yet on the list of diseases presumed to be associated with exposure to Agent Orange should not be the basis for a negative opinion." https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files4/20024447.txtIn this remand dated 04/28/20 "Furthermore, the Board notes that the Veteran has medical training, and new research, memorialized by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS), shows a positive association between hypertension and herbicide exposure in service. However, there is insufficient evidence of record by which the Board can make a decision. The Veteran was not afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his hypertension, and the Board affords the Veteran every benefit of the doubt. As the four McLendon elements are satisfied, the Veteran is entitled to a VA examination and medical opinion." Caroline B. Fleming Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files4/20029600.txt But in this case the BVA stated: "The Board previously denied this claim in a February 2019 decision finding the most persuasive evidence of record did not support a nexus between hypertension and service or his PTSD. With regard to Agent Orange exposure, the Board noted recent NAS findings (the most recent Agent Orange update) indicative of “limited or suggestive” association between hypertension and herbicide exposure, but found such association was not conclusive in this Veteran’s specific case. Rather, according to a June 2018 VA examiner’s opinion and the examiner’s research into the relevant medical literature, a connection between Agent Orange exposure and the development of hypertension would only be possible within individuals in the Army Chemical Corps whom directly handled herbicides. Since the Veteran served as an M-113 armored personal carrier and not in the Army Chemical Corps, the June 2018 VA examiner found a nexus in this case unlikely. The Board denied the claim mainly relying on the June 2018 VA examiner’s opinion." Yet in this case ,the BVA stated: "The February 2019 Board denial was vacated and remanded by virtue of a February 2020 JMR. Therein, the parties agreed that the June 2018 VA examination relied upon by the Board was inadequate. In particular, the parties agreed the matter was previously remanded in September 2015 and again in September 2016 for a VA examiner to specifically consider the 2012 NAS conclusion that found suggestive evidence of an association between herbicide exposure and hypertension notwithstanding that VA has not added hypertension to the list of conditions presumptively associated with Agent Orange exposure. In contrast, the June 2018 VA examiner noted review of the Journal of Occupational Environmental Medicine, but no specific mention or consideration of the NAS Agent Orange update. The examiner found a nexus between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure unlikely because “[e]xposure to herbicides is not presumptive for service connection.” While the examiner noted suggestive data of a connection between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure where a serviceman had more direct handling of herbicides, there is nothing in the VA examination report that indicates the examiner specifically considered the NAS Agent Orange update as directed in two prior Board remands." This case was decided a little over 3 weeks later than the other one I posted first here. SHEREEN M. MARCUS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files5/20032464.txt Yet the two AO Hypertension awards ( maybe there are more by now) clearly refers to (as I did in the accrued claim I have pending) tothe most recent AO HBP NAs report which Ihave posted here in the AO forum months ago: "In the alternative, as explained above, the Veteran is presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange in service and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) moved hypertension from the “limited or suggestive” category and indicated that there is now “sufficient evidence” of an association between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure. See Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 11 (2018). Also, early onset peripheral neuropathy is a disease that is presumed to be associated with herbicide agent exposure. Lastly, the Board has awarded service connection for diabetes mellitus and hypertension and neuropathy are recognized by VA as being potential complications of diabetes." And "The clinician must provide reasons for each opinion given. In this regard, the clinician should address the NAS’s determination that there is now sufficient evidence of an association between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure (See Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 11 (2018)). The fact that hypertension is not yet on the list of diseases presumed to be associated with exposure to Agent Orange should not be the basis for a negative opinion." https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files4/20024447.txt This case was decided on 04/09/20 Jonathan Hager Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Right ---the 2012 report is clear- "sufficient evidence of association between AO and Hypertension." The first two remands here are wrong -maybe I should contact the BVA ombudsman, because two of three of these decisions ( and maybe there are more) are in conflict, with the most recent NAS report,dated 2018 , In the final third BVA case lawyer correctly determined it had to be considered by the RO. This case was decided on 04/09/20 Jonathan Hager Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Right ---the 2012 report is clear- "sufficient evidence of association between AO and Hypertension." , and new research, memorialized by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS), shows a positive association between hypertension and herbicide exposure in service. However, there is insufficient evidence of record by which the Board can make a decision. The Veteran was not afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his hypertension, and the Board affords the Veteran every benefit of the doubt. As the four McLendon elements are satisfied, the Veteran is entitled to a VA examination and medical opinion." Caroline B. FlemingIn this remand dated 04/28/20 "Furthermore, the Board notes that the Veteran has medical training, and new research, memorialized by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS), shows a positive association between hypertension and herbicide exposure in service. However, there is insufficient evidence of record by which the Board can make a decision. The Veteran was not afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his hypertension, and the Board affords the Veteran every benefit of the doubt. As the four McLendon elements are satisfied, the Veteran is entitled to a VA examination and medical opinion." Caroline B. Fleming Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files4/20029600.txt But in this case the BVA stated: "The Board previously denied this claim in a February 2019 decision finding the most persuasive evidence of record did not support a nexus between hypertension and service or his PTSD. With regard to Agent Orange exposure, the Board noted recent NAS findings (the most recent Agent Orange update) indicative of “limited or suggestive” association between hypertension and herbicide exposure, but found such association was not conclusive in this Veteran’s specific case. Rather, according to a June 2018 VA examiner’s opinion and the examiner’s research into the relevant medical literature, a connection between Agent Orange exposure and the development of hypertension would only be possible within individuals in the Army Chemical Corps whom directly handled herbicides. Since the Veteran served as an M-113 armored personal carrier and not in the Army Chemical Corps, the June 2018 VA examiner found a nexus in this case unlikely. The Board denied the claim mainly relying on the June 2018 VA examiner’s opinion." Yet in this case ,the BVA stated: "The February 2019 Board denial was vacated and remanded by virtue of a February 2020 JMR. Therein, the parties agreed that the June 2018 VA examination relied upon by the Board was inadequate. In particular, the parties agreed the matter was previously remanded in September 2015 and again in September 2016 for a VA examiner to specifically consider the 2012 NAS conclusion that found suggestive evidence of an association between herbicide exposure and hypertension notwithstanding that VA has not added hypertension to the list of conditions presumptively associated with Agent Orange exposure. In contrast, the June 2018 VA examiner noted review of the Journal of Occupational Environmental Medicine, but no specific mention or consideration of the NAS Agent Orange update. The examiner found a nexus between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure unlikely because “[e]xposure to herbicides is not presumptive for service connection.” While the examiner noted suggestive data of a connection between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure where a serviceman had more direct handling of herbicides, there is nothing in the VA examination report that indicates the examiner specifically considered the NAS Agent Orange update as directed in two prior Board remands." This case was decided a little over 3 weeks later than the other one I posted first here. SHEREEN M. MARCUS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files5/20032464.txt Yet the two AO Hypertension awards ( maybe there are more by now) clearly refers to (as I did in the accrued claim I have pending) tothe most recent AO HBP NAs report which Ihave posted here in the AO forum months ago: "In the alternative, as explained above, the Veteran is presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange in service and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) moved hypertension from the “limited or suggestive” category and indicated that there is now “sufficient evidence” of an association between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure. See Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 11 (2018). Also, early onset peripheral neuropathy is a disease that is presumed to be associated with herbicide agent exposure. Lastly, the Board has awarded service connection for diabetes mellitus and hypertension and neuropathy are recognized by VA as being potential complications of diabetes." And "The clinician must provide reasons for each opinion given. In this regard, the clinician should address the NAS’s determination that there is now sufficient evidence of an association between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure (See Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 11 (2018)). The fact that hypertension is not yet on the list of diseases presumed to be associated with exposure to Agent Orange should not be the basis for a negative opinion." https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files4/20024447.txt This case was decided on 04/09/20 Jonathan Hager Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Right ---the 2012 report is clear- "sufficient evidence of association between AO and Hypertension." Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files4/20029600.txt But in this case the BVA stated: "The Board previously denied this claim in a February 2019 decision finding the most persuasive evidence of record did not support a nexus between hypertension and service or his PTSD. With regard to Agent Orange exposure, the Board noted recent NAS findings (the most recent Agent Orange update) indicative of “limited or suggestive” association between hypertension and herbicide exposure, but found such association was not conclusive in this Veteran’s specific case. Rather, according to a June 2018 VA examiner’s opinion and the examiner’s research into the relevant medical literature, a connection between Agent Orange exposure and the development of hypertension would only be possible within individuals in the Army Chemical Corps whom directly handled herbicides. Since the Veteran served as an M-113 armored personal carrier and not in the Army Chemical Corps, the June 2018 VA examiner found a nexus in this case unlikely. The Board denied the claim mainly relying on the June 2018 VA examiner’s opinion." Yet in this case ,the BVA stated: "The February 2019 Board denial was vacated and remanded by virtue of a February 2020 JMR. Therein, the parties agreed that the June 2018 VA examination relied upon by the Board was inadequate. In particular, the parties agreed the matter was previously remanded in September 2015 and again in September 2016 for a VA examiner to specifically consider the 2012 NAS conclusion that found suggestive evidence of an association between herbicide exposure and hypertension notwithstanding that VA has not added hypertension to the list of conditions presumptively associated with Agent Orange exposure. In contrast, the June 2018 VA examiner noted review of the Journal of Occupational Environmental Medicine, but no specific mention or consideration of the NAS Agent Orange update. The examiner found a nexus between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure unlikely because “[e]xposure to herbicides is not presumptive for service connection.” While the examiner noted suggestive data of a connection between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure where a serviceman had more direct handling of herbicides, there is nothing in the VA examination report that indicates the examiner specifically considered the NAS Agent Orange update as directed in two prior Board remands." This case was decided a little over 3 weeks later than the other one I posted first here. SHEREEN M. MARCUS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files5/20032464.txt Yet the two AO Hypertension awards ( maybe there are more by now) clearly refers to (as I did in the accrued claim I have pending) tothe most recent AO HBP NAs report which Ihave posted here in the AO forum months ago: "In the alternative, as explained above, the Veteran is presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange in service and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) moved hypertension from the “limited or suggestive” category and indicated that there is now “sufficient evidence” of an association between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure. See Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 11 (2018). Also, early onset peripheral neuropathy is a disease that is presumed to be associated with herbicide agent exposure. Lastly, the Board has awarded service connection for diabetes mellitus and hypertension and neuropathy are recognized by VA as being potential complications of diabetes." And "The clinician must provide reasons for each opinion given. In this regard, the clinician should address the NAS’s determination that there is now sufficient evidence of an association between hypertension and Agent Orange exposure (See Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 11 (2018)). The fact that hypertension is not yet on the list of diseases presumed to be associated with exposure to Agent Orange should not be the basis for a negative opinion." https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files4/20024447.txt This case was decided on 04/09/20 Jonathan Hager Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Right ---the 2012 report is clear- "sufficient evidence of association between AO and Hypertension." Geez, if the BVA judges are not all up on the latest NAS report- they have denied some vets of their rights- because the report might not award all AO exposed vets for HBP, but it is still at a high level that should prompt consideration. "Sufficient" is a higher level of association then many past AO disabilities have had in NAS reports. Any takers on this?????? I was stunned to see how two of these law judges were not aware of the NAS 2018 report. Tomorrow I might find more BVA judges don't know about it either---- this means on remand, the veteran might get a lousy C & P exam and be denied again, unless the veteran finds out about the NAS 2018 report.
  19. I started my first va disability claim in 2010. It was for sinusitis and rhinitis. I only had a few medical records documenting that I said I had sinusitis and rhinitis. The first doctor didn't agree it was from my service. So I didn't get the nexus. I appealed and it went back to the VARO for a review. After a year or so It came back and I put in for the BVA appeal. I got my C&P exam last year after a remand. recently I found out that everything I asked for was granted from VA.gov appeals history section. It says updates take one to two months. I don't know what ratings I got because the website doesn't have that information on it. Does anyone know if the one to two months is accurate for update to disability rating? Thanks to those of you contributing information that helped me figure things out.
  20. Well folks, I finally crossed the goal line that I have been moving the ball toward since I started this adventure in 2010. A few days ago, I saw all kinds of crazy activity on eBenefits and VA.gov as I went to check on my slow shuffle in the BVA line. I had already had my hearing and had several claims granted, and was waiting for the VA to move forward on the granted conditions, or see if they were were going to handle the remaining two remanded conditions that didn't amount to much anyway. I was sitting back with something like 33,000 claims still ahead of me in the slow march, so I was surprised to see an attorney fee determination claim pop up out of nowhere. I called my attorney and left a message with his office. He called me back a couple of days later excited and says that it looks like I'm about to join the Chapter 35 Club and that they will be retro'ing my EED back to my original claim dates. He said to watch for the mail, and as usual to never trust eBenefits, which I don't, but I still do go to, which I know I shouldn't, but I do. Y'all know what I mean. Anyway, a couple of days later, I get a nice retro in my account, and see that eBenefits is showing 100%, and the letter generator shows the same with the famous language of permanent and total with no future exams scheduled included in the letter. I noticed all of the BVA granted conditions were showing as service connected, except for one, so I'm assuming they are still working on that little one. Also the two remanded conditions have not been decided yet either. One called for a records review in the BVA remand decision and the other for a C&P, so since we now live in a COVID-19 world, who knows how that will work out? So anyway, I'm sitting and waiting on the one granted remaining and two remanded, but everything online shows green lights. I did notice that there is are now two "new" claims open in my eBenefits, one still for the attorney fee determination and one for a "STR-Medical", and when I go to it, it says the claim is a regulatory and procedural review. I'm hoping that some of y'all know what that means. I know that nothing is super "official" until I get the big brown envelope, or white, or brown and white....whatever the VA has in stock at the time, but it is a relief to finally be near the end of the tunnel that started with a VONAPP submission to the VA. Yeah, I said it...VONAPP......the claims are that old. I know I've said it before, but I will say it again. I joined this site back in 2012, and it has provided a wealth of knowledge, counseling and peace of mind, and also served as a place to ventilate. I couldn't have made it without the help of you folks. I also have to say that Asknod's e-book on Amazon saved me tons of trouble in the beginning, and it as handy as a pocket on a shirt as you navigate through the process. Thanks to all of you, and I wish you peace, good health and happiness. I'll be back and forth on here still to check in, and maybe give some advice or get some advice. Thank you all for your service, both in the military and now. God bless each and every one of you. Mark
  21. This post is about seeking the best advice for my next step(s). I'll try to be as succinct as possible, however, we are talking about the VA compensation process. I received a BVA decision in December 2018, most appeals were denied, however, the important one’s, back increase (40%) and SC for migraine headaches, although zero percent, were granted and the BVA judge also stated: TDIU: VA treatment records have raised the issue of TDIU as part and parcel of the claims for increased rating; the Veteran has submitted several records indicating findings by VA that he is not employable at present due to his service-connected disabilities. This claim has not yet been adjudicated, and further, in light of grants of service connection and increased rating herein, required additional development. I currently have a total rating of 60% and the VARO TDIU decision states: Entitlement to individual unemployability is denied because you have not been found unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities. This case has not been submitted for extra-schedular consideration because the evidence fails to show you are unemployable due to service connected disabilities. (38 CFR 4.16). I received a fully favorable decision for SSDI by the Social Security Administration and VA Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Services States: After carefully reviewing the evidence, I have determined that it is not reasonable to expect you to be able to train for or get a suitable job at this time. I had a VA/social security attorney, whom I felt was not meeting my needs as there was very limited communication on their part, I’d filed a complaint with them letting them know, I didn’t need hand holding, however I do expect my representative to take action on the BVA decision, appeals, CUE, etc. It seemed like they weren’t interested in working on my behalf, and I kind of felt like they were just waiting for a positive VA decision so they could get paid. I am completely aware VA things take time, and I’ve been battling the VA for three decades now. Anyway, I decided to contact CC&K and they informed me they aren’t interested in taking my case. I’ve already filed a NOD and I have no idea what’s going on with the VARO remand response to the BVA. I’m almost sure, I can win an increase for my migraine headaches rating and entitlement to TDIU via pro se representation. However, I would love to have some assistance and not sure if I should keep contacting attorney’s, VSO, forum buddy, or go on my own. I’ve only had one attorney in all the years I’ve been pursuing my VA compensation rights, my previous VA claims were won on my own, and I’m almost positive both my SSDI and BVA claims were granted without any assistance from the attorney. They got their VA 20% and SSA $6,000, so I figure were good and it was time to terminate our agreement and move on. Thanks in advance…
  22. Pittsburgh RO told me I can't file a "Motion to Advance Docket" until I receive BVA's denial? Is this correct? Doesn't make sense...defeats the purpose of the "Motion"?
  23. I have an appeal in with the BVA. In 1980 when I asked for an increase on my 0% rated disability, rather than increasing it, they totally removed it! I believe this is a CUE. I have just recently been awarded my disability @ the 100% unemployability rate. The V.A. even states in my decision that my knee should have been 30% PRIOR to service ... I submitted my NOD for new effective date October 2018 and have not heard a word; except folks @ 1-800 telling me it does not exist; only to recant when I tell them I am looking at the original ... Is this normal?
  24. Hello, I checked ebenefits and it said I received a GRANT from the CAVC for increased rating "anklyosis of the shoulder." I had appealed for depression and anxiety as well and they were not addressed on ebenefits so I am guessing it is still on remand at the BVA level. Ebenefits also stated that my remand would take 16-24 months. I am currently 60% with 10 for tinnitus, 20 for ankle, 20 for shoulder, 20 for shoulder radicupathy, 10 for knee. What does all this mean? if I am not providing the information needed for input I am happy to do that but at this time I dont know what else to provide you guys. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines