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
a From: Roshchin (1968).
4.2.2 Cleaning of oil-fired boilers
Significant occupational exposure to vanadium occurs during
the cleaning of boilers in oil-fired heating and power plants
and ships (Symanski, 1939; Roshchin, 1968; Kuzelova et al.,
1977; Levy et al., 1984). Fuel oil combustion results in the
formation of vanadium-containing dust, and large amounts of dust
result from operations connected with removing ash encrustations
in boiler cleaning and in cleaning the blades of gas turbines.
Most of these operations are carried out by hand, and the dust
in the air inside the boilers may range from 20 to 400 mg/m3,
the most common range being 50 - 100 mg/m3, with the dust
containing 5 - 17% vanadium pentoxide and from 3 to 10% of the
lower vanadium oxides (Roshchin, 1968). Kuzelova et al. (1977)
reported dust concentrations of 136 - 36 036 ml/m3 in the air
with vanadium concentrations ranging between 1.7 and 18.4
mg/m3.
Williams (1952) published air sampling data on boiler-
cleaning operations in the British power industry. He found
concentrations of soot dust at different points ranging from 239
to 659 mg/m3. The vanadium concentrations in the dust of the
superheater chamber was 40.2 mg/m3, while, in the combustion
chamber, the concentration was 58.6 mg/m3. Most (93.6%) of the
dust particles had a diameter of between 0.15 and 1 µm.
8.4 Occupational Exposure
Occupational poisoning occurs mainly during the industrial
production and use of vanadium and in boiler cleaning
operations. Under these conditions, vanadium may enter the
human body through the respiratory tract; an unknown quantity
will be transported to the alimentary tract when swallowed.
Vanadium can also enter through the skin (Roshchin, 1968).
Both acute and chronic poisoning can occur. Vanadium-
containing industrial aerosols differ in chemical and structural
composition and thus evoke different responses in the human
body.
In sections 8.3.1 - 8.3.4, a survey is made of the available
clinical and epidemiological data on the health effects of
vanadium in workers occupationally exposed to vanadium
compounds. Most of the reported clinical symptoms reflect
irritant effects of vanadium on the respiratory tract and eyes.
8.4.2 Cleaning and related operations on oil-fired boilers
Bronchitis and conjunctivitis resulting from exposure to
soot (containing 6 - 11% vanadium) during the cleaning of the
stacks of oil-fired boilers were first recognized by Frost
(1951). Frost did not report any other effects, but, in a
subsequent report of a boiler-cleaning operation by Williams
(1952), sneezing, nasal discharge, lachrymation, sore throat,
and substernal pain occurred within 0.5 - 12 h of exposure.
Within 6 - 24 h, secondary symptoms developed; these consisted
of dry cough, wheezing, laboured breathing, lassitude, and
depression. In some cases, the cough became paroxysmal and
productive. Symptoms lessened only after removal from the
working environment for 3 days. Air sampling showed most of the
dust particles to be smaller than 1 µg. The vanadium concen-
tration ranged from 17.2 mg/m3 in a superheater chamber to
58.6 mg/m3 in a combustion chamber. Roshchin (1962) observed 8
cases of acute vanadium poisoning in workers who cleaned boiler
flues at power stations burning high-sulfur oil. Analysis of
soot deposits showed that the soot in the region of greatest
dust formation (the pipes of the steam superheater and water
economizer) contained from 24 to 40% vanadium pentoxide. The
workers carried out cleaning operations without respirators or
with respirators that did not provide the necessary protection.
After cleaning the boilers, the workers developed acute vanadium
poisoning: itching in the throat, sneezing, cough with difficult
expectoration, and smarting eyes. On the following days, the
symptoms became more severe. Tightness in the chest, sweating,
general weakness, conjunctivitis, and noticeable loss of weight
developed. On examination one week later, hyperaemia and oedema
of the fauces and posterior pharyngeal wall were observed.
Harsh breathing sounds and dry crepitations were heard in the
lungs. X-ray examination showed intensified lung markings in
the middle zones of the right and left lungs and thickening of
the fissure on the right. One month later, only one worker
still had cough, weakness, perspiration, loss of energy, and
dyspnoea. The other workers recovered quickly, with complete
disappearance of cough and shortness of breath.
In another study on workers engaged in boiler-cleaning
operations (Troppens, 1969), the symptoms were described as
similar to mild coryza or influenza with bronchitis. Following
recovery, workers were tired, debilitated, irritable, without
any appetite, and complained of watery eyes. The first symptoms
were swelling of face and eyes as early as 20 min after entering
the boiler area. Removal from exposure for 2 - 3 weeks resulted
in the disappearance of symptoms. Skin blemishes described as
allergic dermatoses were attributed to absorption of vanadium
through sensitive skin. Troppens claimed that there was an
increased susceptibility of the vanadium worker to asthmatic
bronchitis and emphysema.
An investigation is reported on 53 workers performing
emergency repair work on oil-fired power station boilers (Izycki
et al., 1971). They were exposed to vanadium pentoxide in
average concentrations of from 1.2 to 11 mg/m3 and also to
manganese, calcium, and nickel oxides, and sulfur compounds.
Characteristic features of both acute and chronic vanadium
poisoning included upper respiratory catarrh in 45%, increased
lung markings in 24.5%, and bradycardia in 22% of cases.
Persistent chronic changes in the respiratory tract (rhinitis,
pharyngeal catarrh, laryngitis, and changes in the paranasal
sinuses) were present in 45%.
Milby (1974) reported 21 cases of vanadium poisoning in
boilermakers installing new catalytic-converter tubes. This
work involved marble-sized pellets of vanadium containing 11.7%
V2O5. The dust formed during the shaking of these pellets had a
particle size of 1.1 - 1.5 µm. After working for 72 h, the
workers began to complain of nasal, eye, and bronchial
irritation. By the 4th day, most felt very ill, with signs of
irritation of the upper respiratory tract and eyes and pains in
the chest.
In a study by Garlej (1974) 50 workers engaged in the
cleaning of oil-fired boilers were compared with a control group
of 60 other workers. Boiler deposits contained 44 -65% V2O5;
the maximum exposure was estimated to be 10 mg/m3. Although no
clinical evidence of vanadium poisoning was seen, a number of
exposure-dependent positive biochemical reactions were found in
the boiler-cleaning group. Urinary excretion of delta-amino-
levulinic acid (ALA), porphobilinogen (PBG), and porphyrin
increased beyond the physiological limit, and the positive Nadi
reaction (with associated green fluorescence) occurred. The
increased excretion of cytochrome (as indicated by the Nadi
reaction) suggested oxidation through V2O5 of the thiol group
-SH cysteine in the protein carrier, resulting in decreased
binding of cytochrome in the mitochondria.
A study on 17 men who were engaged in cleaning boilers at an
electric generating station was reported by Lees (1980). In
addition to clinical findings, which were similar to those
described above, urine-vanadium levels were determined, and
pulmonary function measurements were made for a week following
exposure. Sixteen of the men wore protective clothing, and
respirators that were found to have about 9% leakage. One
workman volunteered to wear only a simple oro-nasal dust mask
for 1 h of exposure. The dust exposure level was estimated to
be 26 mg/m3; respirable dust (under 10 µm) was measured at
523 µg/m3 with a vanadium content of 15.3%. All of the men
developed reduced pulmonary function that had not fully returned
to normal in one week, but did so after one month. Reduced
function outlasted the clinical symptoms by several days. Fig. 3
shows the contrast in pulmonary reaction between the more
heavily exposed individual and one of the other workmen. The
urine-vanadium level of the volunteer was 280 µg/litre, whereas
those of the remainder of the workers were below 40 µg/litre.
Other observations of boiler-cleaning operations have been
made by Fallentin & Frost (1954), Sjöberg (1955), Thomas &
Stiebris (1956), Hickling (1958), and Kuzelova et al. (1975).
In terms of respiratory symptoms relating to boiler-cleaning, it
should be noted that sulfates and sulfuric acid may be present
in boiler soot and may be partly responsible for irritative
effects. Hudson (1964) suggested that the quick onset of
symptoms (lachrymation with nose and throat irritation) with
rapid recovery following removal from exposure is character-
istic of exposure to acid sulfates. Response to vanadium expo-
sure is characterized by some delay in the onset of irritative
symptoms (a few hours to several days) and persistence of
symptoms following removal from exposure (Hudson, 1964).
A recent report by Levy et al. (1984) concerned a
comparatively high incidence of severe respiratory tract
irritation in boilermakers (74/100), many of them welders in
areas without adequate ventilation, exposed to vanadium
pentoxide fumes in a power plant where conversion from oil- to
coal-burning occurred. The severe illness of 70 men caused an
average of 5 days of absence, some objective tests (e.g., FVC)
being markedly affected. The vanadium pentoxide content was
above the permissible exposure limit in 8 samples, and this
resulted in litigation for inadequate protection of the
workers.
Kuzelova et al. (1977) drew attention to the occupational
risk of chimney sweeps cleaning large-capacity heating
facilities in large housing settlements. This coincided with a
report of a detailed cross-sectional examination of 121 chimney
sweeps by Holzhauer & Schaller (1977) in the Federal Republic of
Germany with an average exposure duration of 19 years ( ± 5
years). Vanadium exposure was determined by personal samples,
and measurements between 0.73 and 13.7 mg vanadium pentoxide/day
were determined compared with 4 µg in the normal (average)
population. Urinary excretion was determined to be between 0.15
and 13 µg/litre, which was significantly higher than the values
in 31 referents. The main complaints of the chimney sweeps were
wheezing, rhinitis, conjunctival irritation, cough, sputum
dyspnoea, and hoarseness; there were no skin symptoms. A
prospective follow-up of the cohort was emphasized, but the
results are not yet available.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
2
1
Popular Days
May 7
3
Top Posters For This Question
allan 2 posts
Hoppy 1 post
Popular Days
May 7 2007
3 posts
2 answers to this question
Recommended Posts