Applied For The Secondary Issues

[Rockhound]

I was in seeing my VSO to see about setting up Direct Deposit of my new SC 10% award, while their we began to discuss certain secondary issues I felt should have been assessed and/or adjudicated on, for this award and she jumped on it before I had even finished explaining why I thought they should have done so.

The two secondary issues deal with:

(1) Pain I exibited when examined during the C&P exam for my SC fractured nasal bone and deviated septum, due to trauma claim. Superficial scas, analogus to Painful scaring. exibited by tenderness in the nasal region with repeated ulcerations. (A 10% evaluation may be assigned for superficial scars which are poorly nourished with repeated ulcerations, 38 CFR 4.118 DC 7803)

(2) Chronic Sinusitis with non allergic and/or allergic Rhinitis, necessitating daily treatment of a corticosteroid nasal spray at it's highest allowable dosage per PCP and a antihistamine, taken once a day, in order to maintain an open air way through both nasal passages so that treatment for an unrelated breathing problem can be successfully accomplished. (A 10% evaluation may be assigned for a chronic disease that is Inactive, following repeated episodes, without evidence of active infection in past 5 years. However, 20% evaluation may be assigned is shown with a discharging sinus or other evidence of active infection within the past 5 years.CFR 4.71a DC 6311-6314).

Rockhound Rider :P

[Rockhound]

I should have added that my VSO is going to go thru my evidence I have thus far to see what is of value and what isn't and what I need or should bet before she turns in the new claim. She feels strongly that I have a case for these two items, but she wants to make sure that the evidence is more specific or has less wiggle room than my award that led to these two knew items. She feels that secondary issues are scrutinzed more so than the basis claim that they derived from, since they can say that may appear on the surface as being the result of a SC problem, but since it didn't happen at the same time as the claim it was derived from, there is a difference in the standard of proof.

I hope this makes sense. It did when she told it to me.

Rockhound Rider :P