I currently have a NSC Adjustment Disorder with Depression and Anxiety rated at 50% as it related to a Pension. My question is, If I am able to, now, four plus years later find that it was SC'able as secondary to a TBI claim due to cognitive dysfunction. Would I then have a claim for an EED on the award?
My thinking is that since I wasn't SC for the TBI at the time, four years ago, that no I wouldn't, even though the TBI happened many years prior to the recent claim for SC. What is your thinking on this?
The VA denied SC the TBI back then (they didn't call them TBI back then, rather they called them a cerebral concussion, minor, moderate, or severe), and because there wasn't any residual effects noted at the time, they had not to which they could rate. Of course my thinking is that I should have been SC even at 0% residuals, since I had all the indicators at the time of a brain injury: i.e. unconsious for a period, retrograde amnesia to the injury and a period of time leading up to it, fracture nasal bone showing trauma to frontal region of the head, and EEG tracings that showed adnormal slow wave activity of the frontal region of the brain, even after two follow up exams, head aches for a time acterwards, and moderate impairment to social and industrial adaptability, a condition listed at the time, as probably permanent.
A second question arrises with the last condition listed above. "moderate impairment to social and industrial adaptability, a condtion listed as probably permanent." If I had a moderate impairment to adaptability then and I now have a noted NSC 50% adjustment disorder. Why wasn't it considered for SC instead of NSC, now that residuals were clearly present?
Question
Rockhound
I currently have a NSC Adjustment Disorder with Depression and Anxiety rated at 50% as it related to a Pension. My question is, If I am able to, now, four plus years later find that it was SC'able as secondary to a TBI claim due to cognitive dysfunction. Would I then have a claim for an EED on the award?
My thinking is that since I wasn't SC for the TBI at the time, four years ago, that no I wouldn't, even though the TBI happened many years prior to the recent claim for SC. What is your thinking on this?
The VA denied SC the TBI back then (they didn't call them TBI back then, rather they called them a cerebral concussion, minor, moderate, or severe), and because there wasn't any residual effects noted at the time, they had not to which they could rate. Of course my thinking is that I should have been SC even at 0% residuals, since I had all the indicators at the time of a brain injury: i.e. unconsious for a period, retrograde amnesia to the injury and a period of time leading up to it, fracture nasal bone showing trauma to frontal region of the head, and EEG tracings that showed adnormal slow wave activity of the frontal region of the brain, even after two follow up exams, head aches for a time acterwards, and moderate impairment to social and industrial adaptability, a condition listed at the time, as probably permanent.
A second question arrises with the last condition listed above. "moderate impairment to social and industrial adaptability, a condtion listed as probably permanent." If I had a moderate impairment to adaptability then and I now have a noted NSC 50% adjustment disorder. Why wasn't it considered for SC instead of NSC, now that residuals were clearly present?
Rockhound Rider :( :o
Are you a paranoid schizophrenic
if the ones you think are out to
get you, really are?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
1
1
1
1
Popular Days
Nov 1
4
Top Posters For This Question
john999 1 post
Berta 1 post
Rockhound 1 post
George Patton 1 post
Popular Days
Nov 1 2008
4 posts
3 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now