hypertension Stroke Rating

[Ricky]

My claim for 100 percent for six months for my Feb 05 Stroke was denied. During a May 05 CP they service connected the stroke because of my SCed hypertension and rated it for residuals at 10 percent. The rating letter stated" a rating of 100 percent is not warranted because of no indications of a current or recently active disease is present". 38 CFR states that for a stroke "rate at 100 percent for six months, the rate residuals no less that 10 percent. If my stroke was in Feb o5, my daughter filed the claim in Mar 05 with hospital records, MRI and IMO from 38 year board certified neurologist stating that the stroke happened in Feb 05, how can they say there was no active disease? According to my neurologist the residuals, all centeral nervous system, have cause complete loss of use of both my left hand and arm and left leg and foot plus incomplete parlysis of left side of face so the 10 percent for residuals is not even right. They gave me the 10 percent effective March 2003 the date of my re-opened claim. Now how in the he-- could they do this? The stroke happened in March 05 and had nothing to do with the 2003 reopened claim. I guess they felt guilty for screwing me out of the six month 100 percent so they decided to pay me a couple of extra years at the 10 percent rate! I submitted an appeal but this is really freaky. First they service connect it with an effective date of Mar 03 based upon a re-opened claim for an increase for back pain and hypertension, then tell me that although all medical records provide that the stroke happened in Feb 05 that in May 05 their is no recent disease and sum it all up by giving me 10 pecent for residuals which medical documentation clearly shows rating of 70-100 percent for residuals. HOLLY COW I AM CONFUSED or maybe I am just stupid. :D :)

[Ricky]

Sorry forgot to mention. I have the C&P. I quoted it verbetim in the NOD and attached a copy to the NOD. My neuro doc also wrote an IMO to go along with the NOD describing the defecits caused by the stroke and reemphasised that it occurred in Feb 05. His bottom line was that the damage to the central nervous system has resulted in a complete loss of use/function of both my left hand and foot along with other damage to my mouth and face.

[Guest Berta]

Sorry forgot to mention. I have the C&P. I quoted it verbetim in the NOD and attached a copy to the NOD. My neuro doc also wrote an IMO to go along with the NOD describing the defecits caused by the stroke and reemphasised that it occurred in Feb 05. His bottom line was that the damage to the central nervous system has resulted in a complete loss of use/function of both my left hand and foot along with other damage to my mouth and face.

Ricky- it sounds like you did a great job covering it all in your NOD!-

this is why I say to expand whenever you can- the argue for the benefit- in the NOD-

And, as Ricky did here- by all means send them more evidence-if you can-and clearly point out how deficient their statements are-

I would point blank ask them for the DC codes too- if they fail to send them to any of you-

This decision Ricky- it is as bizarre as the ones have I gotten lately-

But let's face it- many claimants accept this crap because they are unable to challenege it-

That is where a good SO comes in- but where the heck are they when vets need them-

They are suggesting 'disease' but you have a ' disability'

I bet you are correct that they do not know what a thrombosis is.

Why would you need a cane, and clothing allowance if you didnt have residuals from this stroke?

I agree that this sure is a bizarre decision Ricky but bizarre seems to be SOP for some claimants-

and they are the ones who often seem to have the most valid medical evidence-

You certainly -if this is all secondary to SC DMII- should be getting SMC too-

what did they say about that- Special Monthly Compensation.

I just got the third denial letter for SMC for my husband-

They refuse to address the CUE I filed on it.

The CUE is supported by a General Counsel pres op and a letter they sent to CHAMPVA.

They just restate Under No circumstances was the veteran entitled to SMC-

no circumstances my a--!

He was eligible under Sec 1151 and also under Nehmer decision.

I never buy what they are selling unless I like it.

You did a great job breaking down that decision-and combatting it's weaknesses.

At my VARO I dont think literacy is a DRO job requirement-I sure hope it is at your VARO.

Berta

[Ricky]

I hate it that anyone has to suffer through the problems with stroke, but Mr. Sharone should have gone the to Birmingham VA Med center and saw one of the C&P doctors there followed by a review of his mishap one of the almighty healers at the Montgomery VARO. Surely they would have cured him just as instantlay as they did me. I think I will email congress and let them know that he should be rushed to Alabama as soon as possible.

[Guest Berta]

yeah---- after all Sharon is a Vet too!

(Not USA vet though)

I am following his illness on the news- it is rather alarming that they didn't do more for him when they discovered the hole in his heart. And I heard about 6 AM that he was transported by car and not ambulance and was unconscious by the time he arrived at the hospital.

I too was thinking that maybe he could get excellent care in the US of A but I sure am kidding when I agreed that the VA should treat him-

I am preparing my response to SSOC on SMC claim today,naming the VA docotr who told me (after he had just gotten the ECHO report) that "nothing" was wrong with Rod's heart- he is a VA Cardiologist-

one of the few remaining screw up docs that is still employed by the VA.I checked them all out.(maybe he is the only one left)

The VA did diagnose Rod's heart disease 3 years after his death- they owe SMC on that and his brain trauma residuals. It was caused by Peripheral Artery disease (DVD) that Dr. Bash said was one more condition he had due to his undiagnosed and untreated DMII from AO.

I don't want any US vet or Sharon to ever go through those medical screw ups.

Edited January 5, 2006 by Berta