I Could Just Strangle Somebody

[stillhere]

I would appreciate someone with the ability to explain the results of my hearing test going into the service and coming out.

Pre induction test R 250 - 500=15, 1,000=15, 2,000=10, 3,000 -,4000=30

L 250- 500=10, 1,000=15, 2,000=15, 3,000- 4,000=10

separation test R 250- 500=15, 1,000=15,2,000=15, 3,000-, 4,000=15

L 250- 500=15, 1,000=15,2,000=15, 3,000-, 4,000=15

Do you see what I see?

[carlie]

still,

"However, upon leaving the military, a repeat audiogram was conducted dated Oct.14,1971 indicating normal thresholds. I question the validity of that exam due to the fact that typically a hearing loss of this nature does not improve. (This audiogram showed an improvement of 40dB at 4,000 Hz.)"

You posted,

""The paragragh above clearly states the improvement is in no way possible. So the exit eam is fraud.

No, the paragraph does not clearly state the improvement is in no way possible.

Typically -- in no way means impossible and the opinion states no Medical Rationale to support this.

Example, I am SC'd for chronic suppurative otitis media - which in layman's terms

is an ear infection with drainage. If I have drainage during the time I have an

Audiology test, the results on the side with the infection can easily be off 40db

or much more. Heck the machine may not have even been calibrated properly.

There can be several more reasons for hearing results to differ.

I am not myself questioning what you say -- I am stating how I feel VA will respond

to the information.

jmho,

carlie

[carlie]

§ 3.156 New and material evidence.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/julqtr/pdf/38cfr3.156.pdf

Hope this helps.

carlie

[stillhere]

still,

"However, upon leaving the military, a repeat audiogram was conducted dated Oct.14,1971 indicating normal thresholds. I question the validity of that exam due to the fact that typically a hearing loss of this nature does not improve. (This audiogram showed an improvement of 40dB at 4,000 Hz.)"

You posted,

""The paragragh above clearly states the improvement is in no way possible. So the exit eam is fraud.

No, the paragraph does not clearly state the improvement is in no way possible.

Typically -- in no way means impossible and the opinion states no Medical Rationale to support this.

Example, I am SC'd for chronic suppurative otitis media - which in layman's terms

is an ear infection with drainage. If I have drainage during the time I have an

Audiology test, the results on the side with the infection can easily be off 40db

or much more. Heck the machine may not have even been calibrated properly.

There can be several more reasons for hearing results to differ.

I am not myself questioning what you say -- I am stating how I feel VA will respond

to the information.

jmho,

carlie

I understand where you are coming from and do not need hugh type(my eyes are fine) to get a point across. But if you have a hearing loss next time you go to your audiologist just ask if you could improve your hearing by 40dB what would it take. I am sure they will tell you it is almost impossible. While I do agree with you the letter/statment is not the best. I am taking yours and anyone else's comments and going back to see if I can get her to expand on it and clarify it better.

[stillhere]

§ 3.156 New and material evidence.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/julqtr/pdf/38cfr3.156.pdf

Hope this helps.

carlie

General. A claimant may reopen a

finally adjudicated claim by submitting

new and material evidence. New

evidence means existing evidence not

previously submitted to agency decisionmakers.

OK the new and I consider material evidence the fact in the letter statment questioning the validity of the exit test on record. That has never before been questioned and is now by the letter not only questioned but being told there is no way this is a actual test of said individual's exit exam.

[purple]

[stillhere]

Thanks Purple, I think?