Echocardiogram

[Ron II]

Ron, if you meet the criteria for a higher rating for heart disease, It should be a no brainer. The Ratings are based on Test results and the ratings are based on the Ejection fraction, Congestive Heart Failure and other information. The most significant test is a Cardiac Catherization. It is an actual person looking inside and taking the measurements.

For example, You have a heart Echo and your EF is 55 percent, You then have a heart cath and it shows your EF at 50 percent. The VA has to go with the Heart cath. It overrides other test results.

J

Hi Jbasser,

I don't have the EF at the rates you mention, but the Echo showed LVH. Isn't that enough to receive a 30 percent rating? Please see the extract from my appeal below, which was partially written by our own Ricky .

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On January 23, 2008 an Echocardiogram (EC) was conducted by Colorado Springs Cardiologists and interpreted by Dr. David A*******. As a result of the testing, Dr. A****** provided a diagnosis of Concentric Left Ventricular Hypertrophy (LVH). This new evidence is an independent medical opinion/examination the VA did not have when they made the previous decision and the evidence bears directly on the issue of why it was previously denied. Your denial included the necessity (for a rating of more than 10 percent) for several medical values including, “A higher evaluation of 30 percent is not warranted unless...or evidence of cardiac hypertrophy or dilation on..., echocardiogram, or X-ray.”

The January 23, 2008 Echocardiogram is the most accurate assessment of my current level of disability and actually supports my contention that my condition has become worse since my 2003 stress test. If nothing else, the new and material evidence shows Concentric Left Ventricular Hypertrophy (LVH) on January 23, 2008. Additionally, since December 2003, there are two pieces of evidence now, the 6.2 METs evaluation and the LVH finding that support a 30 percent rating. It seems that “...reconciling the various reports into a consistent picture so that the current rating may accurately reflect the elements of disability present .”--now portrays a picture involving multiple tangible medical views warranting 30 percent, and nothing tangible since 2003 that supports a 10 percent rating.

Although my 2003 METs pre-dates my original claim by several years, it does provide a bookend along with the Echocardiogram (which directly bears on the level of disability) to support a higher rating, especially since

no other tests were done between the two elements—past medical report and current finding. As stated above,

the “consistent picture” is tangible.

-----------------

Ron

p.s.

I don't think I have a case for retro past January 23, 2008, but it seems that date should be approved at 30-percent without a problem. For my heart, I am currently rated at 10 percent for cardiac pacemaker. That rating was made retro to my claim of Aug 2006.

[stillhere]

With my claim I was denied heart disease as I put in a claim as heart pain, and then BAM while the cliam was being denied I had a heart attack with risidual heart damage and left with a left ventricule ejection of 46% and they granted me on my DRO review CAD at 60% back to the date of the heart attack. So like Berta said you might get a higher rateing depends what your cardio doc writes.

Good luck with your claim!

[68chstiger]

cg,

I have heart disease but it is not service connected, I have many other issues that are. It sounds like you would be rated at 60% with your condition.

68chstiger