diabetes Va Letter Calls My Nod

[Berta]

My AO death claim has been pending at the VA since Feb 2003-

Since the fast remand last year they have consistently told me thay are working on it and my CUE for SMC-which was denied -but I filed a reconsideration request on it.

I filed a NOD on the SMC CUE to make sure my NOD appeal period didnt run out-on June 21.2007

This letter says they received my CLAIM for SC due to heart disease secondary to Rod's PTSD on June 22, 2007! What claim-

I had an old claim at the BVA on that- I never appealed it because I got SIC under Sec 1151 in 1998.

In AUgust 2006 the VA filed a Motion to Reconsider that old BVA claim.

But they didnt tell the BVA what the decision date was.

I guess the BVA could not take jurisdiction.It was based on same premise -the veterans PTSD contributed to his heart disease-

it did - The VA is only hospital around that treats PTSD- therefore Rod's PTSD put him in harms way because as a VA PTSD patient, they also misdiagnosed his heart disease, DMII, HBP and strokes (all documented and proven). Also two doctors in SOCs stated association from his PTSD to his strokes (due to heart disease)

It would be easy to service connect his heart disease to his PTSD for me based on the clinical record etc-but why?

Am I going nuts?

Since I have 3 IMos and additional evidence sent since Feb 2003 on an AO death claim Under Nehmer therefore retro$$$$ and also the CUE involves retro too-

does it seem to anyone here -as it appears to me- that they do NOT want to deal with the Nehmer issue at all -that is the claim on remand for expeditious treatment-

There is evidence from 2 VA doctors to support this so called claim they said my NOD was.

I can certainly get a private IMO too-

But I am wondering why-since the evidence they have of diabetes as one of the "multiple"AO diagnosed conditions that caused Rod's death should award a direct SC death (they would owe me 60,000-70,000 in offset and other benefits I didnt even know about or consider in 2003 when I filed it)

WHat advantage is it for them to say this NOD is a "claim" and then expect me to get another IMO for this "claim"when they have 3 already to support the AO death claim filed in Jan 2003 and supported with considerable medical evidence in addition to the 3 IMOs?

They actually sent me with this letter I just got the very first VCAA letter I have ever received since Jan 2003-with the election notice.

In war maneuver class I learned the powerful advantage of deception-

and throwing the enemy off with an unusual tactic of diversion--I thiink VA is trying to pull that on me here-

to continue to avoid the overwhelming fact that Rod died due to an Agent Orange condition-one more misdiagnosis of many proven already-fully supported by Real medical evidence from a real doctor and not one of the VA quacks that misdiagnosed him numerous times-

if they want to play war games- they sent this to the wrong claimant-I can support this "claim" with evidence-no problem-

but does anyone here see what I mean?

If you have one claim pending for 4 1/2 years with lots of probative support why the heck would VA want to turn my NOD on a SMC CUE denial into a claim like this?

They never mentioned my remanded AO death claim or my SMC CUE at all.

I am sending inquiry to VA as to the other claims-

and making an appointment with my vet reps-

it is about time they got their thumbs out of their rectums and actually did something for me that their mission statement says they will do.

It never fails- when I am overloaded as it is- then that is when I hear from the VA-

I just noticed- first it says they are working on my appeal regarding "cardiovascular disease" as contributing to Rod's death-

I dont have an appeal like that.Unless they are reffering to my CUE for SMC.

But then they say We have received your claim dated June 22,2007.

That was the NOD with evidence on the CUEs.One was for cardiovascular misdiagnosis and lack of rating.

???

Maybe I should just get a lawyer on all this-

(maybe that is why they are calling the NOD- filed after the New attorney regs so I could get a lawyer if needed- - a Claim! and not a NOD !)

This is the busiest time of my year-I have major LOA test for graduation Monday and my last course begins next Sunday-

My daughter is coming home for a few days too-and I have to deal with this crap-

when my SMC CUE and AO death claims are as perfect as they could be and fully supported by medical evidence.

I really am starting to feel this RO holds it against me that I have helped many Buffalo vets and am VERY

vocal in telling anyone I can how they have denied me my rights (most recently Congressman Filner and a large radio audience) and I asked him to propose my amendment to the VCAA.

Funny how I never got any VCAA on any of my other claims but my NOD that put me into lawyers for vets regs criteria got me a VCAA letter in less than two months.

I am not upset about this- just overwhelmed by other things here ---but I am

absolutely baffled by this letter- they still owe me money but maybe they think this idea they got is cheaper than Nehmer retro-

????

[carlie]

Berta,

You posted,

" In war maneuver class I learned the powerful advantage of deception-

and throwing the enemy off with an unusual tactic of diversion--I think VA is trying to pull that on me here-"

I agree with your feelings on this and see a great deal of it in most of the decisions I have read and received. I can show many examples, such as in reading through the

Reasons and Bases section's the claim issue can be, let's say Tinnitus, and remember the issues are usually numbered.

This is from a VARO SOC I received 08/11/03

DECISION:

1. Service connection for tinnitus is denied.

REASONS AND BASES:

1. Service connection for tinnitus.

The veteran denied any history of heart disease or heart problems, although there is a documented history of endocardial fibroelastosis with some degree of heart enlargement.

Physical examination was otherwise unremarkable. The veteran is right hand dominant.

My thoughts on this -- what the hell does my heart or being right hand dominant have to do with tinnitus ? ? ? Absolutely nothing ! Just more verbiage they are listing on the issue of tinnitus that continues to confuse everyone and ruffle the claimants feathers.

It also bothers me when I'm reading a reply from VA and somehow they manage to repeat the same paragraph two or more times. It reinforces in my mind that not only is our evidence not being read and comprehended as stated, but VA certainly does not

proof their own letters they are sending out to the claimant's.

jmho,

carlie

[Berta]

Carlie- you are right- they are not reading many claims properly-

as the ridiculous statement you mentioned shows-

By the way- The VARO corrected their error as to the socalled "claim" I filed on June 22,2007.

They fully acknowledged it in writing yesterday as a NOD and sent me the DRO review crapola.

If the reconsideration request it involves-that they have been 'working on' for many months-does not produce the proper award I will get a lawyer.Contacting one today.

I am also asking the VSM (with copy of her January 2006 letter telling me to expect VCAA letters on my CUEs) for those VCAA letters.

CUE claims don't get VCAA letters but since this VSM of a large RO -a federal employee with a very good GS level paycheck-who answers only to the Director there-said I would get them (documented)----then I want them.

I had 8 days left to file NOD (reconsideration requests do not stop the NOD 365 day clock) but had waited anxiously for the lawyer for regs effective date and was thrilled that my NOD could fit into that criteria.

Lawyers can read.

The last letter I received on these 2 CUEs showed how VA was attempting to divert the issue and their idea was pretty creative-but it wont work.I rebutted immediately with the regs that said they were wrong.

They have yet to consider my legal evidence on these claims.They had the audacity to call a General Counsel Precedental Opinion -an "internet printout" and never mentioned it beyond that.

Why dont they just call the entire 9 yards of 38 CFR and 38 USC an 'internet printout' that they can disregard-hell they could deny everyone if they did that-

My CUE claims are supported by considerable established VA case law so simple to comprehend that a 12 year old could award these CUEs.

VA itself puts our claims onto a paper battleground.

They waste the taxpayers money by drawing claims out with their paper war of the words.

I bet they would save considerable money on postage alone-

if they did it all right the first time.

Edited August 28, 2007 by Berta

[betrayed]

They will not even acknowledge that he has claimed, and was claiming that his cancer STARTED while he was in the service.

This was NOT a little side comment in his claim. It was the MAJOR basis of his claim. He repeated it over and over and over again.

Yet they continued to act like it had never been said.

Free

sounds like my chronic pain claim, I use the smart ass remark "I claimed it with invisible ink" Seriously that was the crux of my DRO Hearing last week, I think I (and the DAV VSO) got through to him.

Edited August 28, 2007 by BETRAYED

[free_spirit_etc]

That was quick - them correcting themselves.

Hoppy is always talking about how the VA intentionally doesn't write exactly why you were denied a claim.

I do think they like to draw you into fighting the side issues - that have nothing to do with granting the claim. You can see that a lot of times in the BVA statements. They veteran finally "proves" what the RO was denying the claim based on - but that issue was not relevant enough to grant the claim.

ANd yes, they waste tons of taxpayer's money with the stuff they pull.

And actually - the money paid to the vet is the vet's money. Part of the backloading of military pay is that the military person is paid less than comparable civilian jobs with the idea that if the person is injured or becomes ill - or if they serve a certain amount of time - they will get the rest of the money that was "put aside" for such purposes.

I remember reading once that they had even discussed paying the military more - and cutting back on vet programs - but they didn't trust that the young military members would use the money wisely to take care of the things the VA takes care of.

So in essence - the government keeps part of the money the vet should have been paid, in order to take care of the vet, and then wastes piles of money making the vet go through the dysfunctional system he has to go through to get the money they put aside for him.

Free

Carlie- you are right- they are not reading many claims properly-

as the ridiculous statement you mentioned shows-

By the way- The VARO corrected their error as to the socalled "claim" I filed on June 22,2007.

They fully acknowledged it in writing yesterday as a NOD and sent me the DRO review crapola.

If the reconsideration request it involves-that they have been 'working on' for many months-does not produce the proper award I will get a lawyer.Contacting one today.

I am also asking the VSM (with copy of her January 2006 letter telling me to expect VCAA letters on my CUEs) for those VCAA letters.

CUE claims don't get VCAA letters but since this VSM of a large RO -a federal employee with a very good GS level paycheck-who answers only to the Director there-said I would get them (documented)----then I want them.

I had 8 days left to file NOD (reconsideration requests do not stop the NOD 365 day clock) but had waited anxiously for the lawyer for regs effective date and was thrilled that my NOD could fit into that criteria.

Lawyers can read.

The last letter I received on these 2 CUEs showed how VA was attempting to divert the issue and their idea was pretty creative-but it wont work.I rebutted immediately with the regs that said they were wrong.

They have yet to consider my legal evidence on these claims.They had the audacity to call a General Counsel Precedental Opinion -an "internet printout" and never mentioned it beyond that.

Why dont they just call the entire 9 yards of 38 CFR and 38 USC an 'internet printout' that they can disregard-hell they could deny everyone if they did that-

My CUE claims are supported by considerable established VA case law so simple to comprehend that a 12 year old could award these CUEs.

VA itself puts our claims onto a paper battleground.

They waste the taxpayers money by drawing claims out with their paper war of the words.

I bet they would save considerable money on postage alone-

if they did it all right the first time.