I Just Don't Get It!

[stillhere]

Well finally got a rating back on my last claim, the denied everything except for the NP in my hands. Even that was only granted to Feb. 08. I asked for that in an recosideration in April 07.

I have filed an NOD with a DRO review requested.

1. I am asking for a EED of April 07 because that was when I first filed for it.

2. An increase for DB2 and for my heart disease because of limited activities clearly noted in my exam by the QTC CP.

3. Now on the hearing loss I have a moderate to severe in LE and same in the RE. I sent in a statement from my audiologist stating that my hearing loss was consistent with noise truama that occured in service. I am requestiing my audiologist to beef up the statement to "more likely than not" I am hoping to finally get this to be SC and will go in my grave appealing if I have to!!

Any comments or suggestions welcomed, the VA has givin me thirty days to supply them any more support before they start the DRO review!

[rentalguy1]

Post up their exact wording for the reasons and bases for the hearing loss denial. Also post up your audiogram threshold scores and speech recognition scores and I'll tell you where your rating should be. BTW...what was your MOS in service? Sometimes that can play a critical role in denial of hearing loss claims.

On the EED of Feb 08, did you happen to submit new evidence in that time frame? If so, that is why the EED is reflected there. There may not have been enough evidence on record prior to that to grant the claim. Doesn't mean that you can't convince them to give you a earlier date, just could be their possible justification for the later award date.

[stillhere]

Post up their exact wording for the reasons and bases for the hearing loss denial. Also post up your audiogram threshold scores and speech recognition scores and I'll tell you where your rating should be. BTW...what was your MOS in service? Sometimes that can play a critical role in denial of hearing loss claims.

On the EED of Feb 08, did you happen to submit new evidence in that time frame? If so, that is why the EED is reflected there. There may not have been enough evidence on record prior to that to grant the claim. Doesn't mean that you can't convince them to give you a earlier date, just could be their possible justification for the later award date.

We determined that the following condition was not related to your military service, so service connection remains denied because the evidence submitted is not new and material.

Evidence is considered new when it is not merely cumlative of other evidence on record and is considered material when it is revelant nad probative of the issue at hand. New and material evidence means evidnece not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers, which is neither comulative nor reduntant, and which by itself or in connection with evidence previously assembled is so significant that it must be considered in order to fairly decide the merits of the claim.

service Connection for bi-lateral high frquency hearing loss

Your claim for service connection for a bilateral hearing loss was previously denied by our decision of July 18, 1984 You did not file an appeal within the one year of that decision and it became final. New and material evidence is now needed to reopen the claim.

A calimant may reopen a finally adjudicated claim by submitting new and material eveidence New evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers. Material evidence means evidence existing that by itself or when considered with previous evedence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substansiate the claim.

The current medical evidence shows a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss. However, the current medical evidence obtained in connection with the current claiim does not constitute new and materal evidence because it does not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim and does not raise a resaonable possibility of substantiating the claim. There is no medical evidence of record to attribute the currrent findings to your military service. You have indicated exposure to noise while in service but the service treatment records show no indication of hearing conservation or profiles or noise exposure.

Test:

RE

250/50, 500/70, 1500-, 2,000/105 3000/105 6000/105 8000/105

LE

250/60, 500/70, 1000/75, 2000/70, 3000/70, 4000/65, 6000/80, 8,000/75

Speech recognition right ear CNT (could not test)

left ear 68%

Thanks for any help!

[carlie]

still,

Is it possible to also post their July 1984 denial ?

carlie

[rentalguy1]

what did you turn in for evidence? Did you have a nexus statement from a audiologist? What was your MOS?

[stillhere]

still,

Is it possible to also post their July 1984 denial ?

carlie

Carlie, Just one sheet and it read:

We can not grant your claim for disbility benefits.

The evidence does not establish service connection for the following: "EVIDENCE OF RECORD SHOWS THAT NO HEARIING LOSS OCCURED DURING YOUR SERVICE"

[stillhere]

what did you turn in for evidence? Did you have a nexus statement from a audiologist? What was your MOS?

Rental, I was just going over some of my old records. I was with a support unit in Danang and my official mos was 52b30 power generator operator. I essentially maintaned and supply all the electrical for the compound. I just like a lot of us back then did not work in my MOS right away. I was actually held back in Long bien for about 3 weeks trying to send me somewhere. They finally found a hole for me with the HQ company for about two months doing primeter patrol and tower guard. I started my actual assignment after that and worked on all the generators on the flight line and the company's big ass 150K diesel engines. LOUD AS SHEET. I was still required to pull tower when my name rolled around and was certified on the m-60, and m-16, and m-79.

On my discharge papers it states high frequency loss!

my audiologist wrote me a letter saying the noise I was subjected too was consistent with truama damage.

I have worn an aid since 83 and paid for them all quite simply because I did not want to deal with the VA!!

You said you would let me know what you think I should be rated for this, what do you get?