Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules
- 0
hypertension Standard Medical Principles Helped
Rate this question
-
Similar Content
-
- 3 answers
- 402 views
-
- 5 answers
- 941 views
-
- 5 answers
- 1,776 views
-
- 11 answers
- 1,219 views
-
VA different higher normal HBP/HTN for vets 1 2
By Dustoff1970,
- blood pressure
- compensation
- (and 2 more)
- 9 answers
- 1,150 views
-
Question
Berta
Yesterday I posted here somewhere:
http://www.va.gov/vetapp05/files2/0509919.txt
The claim was based on getting SC for stroke residuals.
The veterans had established his CAD and HBP etc were service connected but this claim was for residuals of a stroke that he claimed resulted from the SC conditions.
The BVA made this point:
"2. Medical literature establishes that diseases for which
the veteran has been granted service connection, including
hypertension, coronary artery disease with a history of
myocardial infarction, cardiomyopathy and congestive heart
failure, are major risk factors for stroke (cerebrovascular
accident), and the record discloses no opinion that the
veteran's stroke was due to any disorder other than the
service-connected disabilities."
The BVA itself can use medical treatises or any standard medical principles at all to support their opinion.
I dont think the ROs read medical treatises- they sure never readmine regarding my AO death claim-
but IMo doctors use them and the BVA recognizes their validity.
The point the BVA is making is a good one-
if you have a condition that is medical associated in the standard medical community to a SC condition--without any VA opinion that contradicts this with medical rationale- the medical facts as a potential association should be acceptable to VA as prime facie evidence that the secondary condition is due to service.
In my case -I had to prove that my husband- with misdiagnosed(proven to VA in 1997-1998) CVAs and CAD also had been misdiagnosed with the true etiology of these conditions- diabetes mellitus.
The specific type of CVAs and also his heart disease -after carefully study of the MRIs and autopsy- and also extensive medical info on the net-I associated the clinical record and autopsy to top notch diabetes literature on the internet and
I found no other known etiology but for diabetes to have caused Rod's extensive brain and heart trauma.
I even supplied VA with photos of both autopsied brains and a heart and specifically referred them to the areas of damage labeled as to his clinical records that suported this all- and then referred VA too established medical texts and abstracts that ruled out his specific conditions to any other etiology but for undiagnosed DMII.
VA listed all of this extensive medical info simply as " internet printputs" in the evidence section of the SOC and never read the info nor reffered to it at all.
Dr. Bash-after an initial and very brief run down of my evidence- emailed me back Sounds Good! and then provided two separate opinions that supported my claim and also the extensive research I had done.
But before even contacting Craig-and then laying out the IMO fee I had certainly convinced myself that my claim was valid and supported with significant medical evidence-when he called after after he had assessed the evidence I was not surprised at all that he agreed with the claim.
Being a student in a mil school- I sure looked for the potential VA landmines as I call them- the things VA could come up with to use against the claim-
the only one that VA could have used was some other medical etiology for the diabetes other than
Agent Orange (which wont work for them)as Rod spent a year in I CORPs) or to somehow prove that the specific types of CAD and CVAs -in my husband's case-were NOT due to diabetes-
but it was a complete study of the clinical record and all medical data I could find that revealed there was no other etiology-in Rod's case- due to the ECHO result of his heart and the significant MRI narrative of his brain trauma and the complete autopsy narration.
Not all CVA and CAD has its origin in diabetes. That was the only VA landmine I could imagine and the VA expert offered "no opinion" at all that Rods CAD and CVA came from something else but diabetes-as this BVA case reflects -----as to any other potential cause or origin of his undiagnosed DMII.And of course Dr. Bash pounced on her whole IMO as "medically inaccurate" in his second IMO for my claim.
This is a long rendition here but it could help someone out there-
My point is this- A + B equals C----
If a vet has something that has a medically recognized etiology-
the VA cannot pull some rabbit out of a hat to go against the etiology-
unless that rabbit is an expert MD with a full medical rationale.And is willing to make medical history.
The above claim at the BVA involved two issues-Stroke residuals (CVA) and blurred vision.
Blurred vision is symptomatic of stroke but "developmental" and by regulation precluded from SC-per the BVA (I would have challenged that- as the blurred vision could have been evidence of diminished vision-but BVA denied that part of the claim)
The stroke was denied by the Jackson Mississippi VARO as VA said it was not related or due to the veteran's SC CAD and HBP-
Obviously this denial was not based on the standard medical principles that the BVA emphatically stated when they awarded for the stroke residuals in this decision.
Hope all that didnt bore anyone- I think this BVA case is a beauty.
Edited by BertaGRADUATE ! Nov 2nd 2007 American Military University !
When thousands of Americans faced annihilation in the 1800s Chief
Osceola's response to his people, the Seminoles, was
simply "They(the US Army)have guns, but so do we."
Sameo to us -They (VA) have 38 CFR ,38 USC, and M21-1- but so do we.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
2
1
Popular Days
Aug 24
3
Top Posters For This Question
Berta 2 posts
Boats 1 post
Popular Days
Aug 24 2007
3 posts
2 answers to this question
Recommended Posts