Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules
- 0
-
Tell a friend
-
Recent Achievements
-
Our picks
-
Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
Tbird posted a record in VA Claims and Benefits Information,
Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection. See COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL
This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:
Current Diagnosis. (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)
In-Service Event or Aggravation.
Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”-
- 0 replies
Picked By
Tbird, -
-
Post in ICD Codes and SCT CODES?WHAT THEY MEAN?
Timothy cawthorn posted an answer to a question,
Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability ratingPicked By
yellowrose, -
-
Post in Chevron Deference overruled by Supreme Court
broncovet posted a post in a topic,
VA has gotten away with (mis) interpreting their ambigious, , vague regulations, then enforcing them willy nilly never in Veterans favor.
They justify all this to congress by calling themselves a "pro claimant Veteran friendly organization" who grants the benefit of the doubt to Veterans.
This is not true,
Proof:
About 80-90 percent of Veterans are initially denied by VA, pushing us into a massive backlog of appeals, or worse, sending impoverished Veterans "to the homeless streets" because when they cant work, they can not keep their home. I was one of those Veterans who they denied for a bogus reason: "Its been too long since military service". This is bogus because its not one of the criteria for service connection, but simply made up by VA. And, I was a homeless Vet, albeit a short time, mostly due to the kindness of strangers and friends.
Hadit would not be necessary if, indeed, VA gave Veterans the benefit of the doubt, and processed our claims efficiently and paid us promptly. The VA is broken.
A huge percentage (nearly 100 percent) of Veterans who do get 100 percent, do so only after lengthy appeals. I have answered questions for thousands of Veterans, and can only name ONE person who got their benefits correct on the first Regional Office decision. All of the rest of us pretty much had lengthy frustrating appeals, mostly having to appeal multiple multiple times like I did.
I wish I know how VA gets away with lying to congress about how "VA is a claimant friendly system, where the Veteran is given the benefit of the doubt". Then how come so many Veterans are homeless, and how come 22 Veterans take their life each day? Va likes to blame the Veterans, not their system.Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Post in Re-embursement for non VA Medical care.
broncovet posted an answer to a question,
Welcome to hadit!
There are certain rules about community care reimbursement, and I have no idea if you met them or not. Try reading this:
https://www.va.gov/resources/getting-emergency-care-at-non-va-facilities/
However, (and I have no idea of knowing whether or not you would likely succeed) Im unsure of why you seem to be so adamant against getting an increase in disability compensation.
When I buy stuff, say at Kroger, or pay bills, I have never had anyone say, "Wait! Is this money from disability compensation, or did you earn it working at a regular job?" Not once. Thus, if you did get an increase, likely you would have no trouble paying this with the increase compensation.
However, there are many false rumors out there that suggest if you apply for an increase, the VA will reduce your benefits instead.
That rumor is false but I do hear people tell Veterans that a lot. There are strict rules VA has to reduce you and, NOT ONE of those rules have anything to do with applying for an increase.
Yes, the VA can reduce your benefits, but generally only when your condition has "actually improved" under ordinary conditions of life.
Unless you contacted the VA within 72 hours of your medical treatment, you may not be eligible for reimbursement, or at least that is how I read the link, I posted above. Here are SOME of the rules the VA must comply with in order to reduce your compensation benefits:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.344
Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Post in What is the DIC timeline?
broncovet posted an answer to a question,
Good question.
Maybe I can clear it up.
The spouse is eligible for DIC if you die of a SC condition OR any condition if you are P and T for 10 years or more. (my paraphrase).
More here:
Source:
https://www.va.gov/disability/dependency-indemnity-compensation/
NOTE: TO PROVE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL LIKELY REQUIRE AN AUTOPSY. This means if you die of a SC condtion, your spouse would need to do an autopsy to prove cause of death to be from a SC condtiond. If you were P and T for 10 full years, then the cause of death may not matter so much.Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Question
allan
Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 112, Number 6, May 2004
Research Article
Urinary 8-Hydroxy-2´-Deoxyguanosine as a Biomarker of Oxidative DNA Damage in Workers Exposed to Fine Particulates
Jee Young Kim,1 Sutapa Mukherjee,1 Long Ngo,2 and David C. Christiani1,3
1Department of Environmental Health, Occupational Health Program, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; 2Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; 3Pulmonary and Critical Care Unit, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Abstract
Residual oil fly ash (ROFA) is a chemically complex mixture of compounds, including metals that are potentially carcinogenic because of their ability to cause oxidative injury. In this study, we investigated the association between exposure to particulate matter with an aerodynamic mass median diameter 2.5 µm (PM2.5) and oxidative DNA damage and repair, as indicated by urinary 8-hydroxy-2´-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) concentrations, in a group of boilermakers exposed to ROFA and metal fumes. Twenty workers (50% smokers) were monitored for 5 days during an overhaul of oil-fired boilers. The median occupational PM2.5 8-hr time-weighted average was 0.44 mg/m3 (25th-75th percentile, 0.29-0.76). The mean ± SE creatinine-adjusted 8-OHdG levels were 13.26 ± 1.04 µg/g in urine samples collected pre-workshift and 15.22 ± 0.99 µg/g in the post-workshift samples. The urinary 8-OHdG levels were significantly greater in the post-workshift samples than in the pre-workshift samples (p = 0.02), after adjusting for urinary cotinine levels, chronic bronchitis status, and age. Linear mixed models indicated a significant exposure-response association between PM2.5 exposure and urinary 8-OHdG levels (p = 0.03). Each 1-mg/m3 incremental increase in PM2.5 exposure was associated with an increase of 1.67 µg/g (95% confidence interval, 0.21-3.14) in 8-OHdG levels. PM2.5 vanadium, manganese, nickel, and lead exposures also were positively associated with 8-OHdG levels (p 0.05). This study suggests that a relatively young and healthy cohort of boilermakers may experience an increased risk of developing oxidative DNA injury after exposure to high levels of metal-containing particulate matter. Key words: biomarkers, epidemiology, occupational, oxidative DNA damage, particulate matter. Environ Health Perspect 112:666-671 (2004). doi:10.1289/ehp.6827 available via http://dx.doi.org/ [Online 20 January 2004]
Address correspondence to D.C. Christiani, Harvard School of Public Health, Occupational Health Program, Building I, Room 1402, 665 Huntington Ave., Boston, MA 02115 USA. Telephone: (617) 432-3323. Fax: (617) 432-3441. E-mail: dchris@hohp.harvard.edu
We thank S. Magari, C. Amarasiriwardena, E. Rodrigues, and N. Lupoli for their assistance. Special thanks to the staff and members of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers of Local No. 29.
This study was supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants ES09860, ES00002, and CA94715. J.Y.K. was supported by Harvard-National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health Education and Research Center training grant T42110421 and NIH postdoctoral fellowship T32 ES07069.
The authors declare they have no competing financial interests.
Received 29 October 2003; accepted 20 January 2004.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
1
1
Popular Days
May 7
2
Top Posters For This Question
Stretch 1 post
allan 1 post
Popular Days
May 7 2007
2 posts
1 answer to this question
Recommended Posts