tdiu Cue And Heart Disease

[john999]

I got a letter from the VA today. As I suspected the VA denied my CUE for an earlier effective date for TDIU back to 1971 based on a diagnosis of service connected schizophrenia. They said the reason I was unemployable was due to a passive aggressive presonality disorder. They turned my doctor's medical report on its head, and ignored the diagnosis of chronic schizophrenia, and somehow got a personality disorder out of that. They even ignored their own doctor's diagnosis of residual schizophrenia. They left my TDIU date as August 30, 2001 for the same condition (residual schizophrenia) they said I had in 1971. I guess schizoprenia morphed into a PD when money was on the line. The surprise was they rated my so-called heart disease at 60% up from 0%. So now according to my math I have a rating of 92%. I was already 80% and an extra 60% only gets me to 92%. I will definitely take this to the BVA if my lawyer is willing to go the distance. The rater made a medical decision to override my doctor' diagnosis and say it was a PD that made me unemployable rather than schizophrenia. The funny thing is the SSOC states the symptoms I am suffering from including paranoia, anxiety, depression, depersonalization (a symptom of dissociative disorder) and then says only 10%. These are not symptoms of a PD. I knew no DRO had the guts to approve a retro rating back to 1971 that would have cost them over a 100,000 bucks easy. However, with a heart condition now rated at 60% I think I should apply for HB. I am at death's door according to the VA. They got nothing right in this decision.

[deltaj]

John, what date was your heart rated at 0%?

You need to read the Federal Circuit course decision in Groves v. Peake. You had paranoia in service and if your service records showed the paranoia that is evidence of psychosis.

[Wings]

Good to see you Delta! Tbird should give you Elder Status at the board, as the quantity and quality of your contributions to the older hadit forum were substantial! HUGS!! ~Wings

See also:

38 USC 1702. Presumption relating to psychosis

For the purposes of this chapter, any veteran of World War II, the Korean conflict, the Vietnam era, or the Persian Gulf War who developed an active psychosis

(1) within two years after discharge or release from the active military, naval, or air service, and (2) before July 26, 1949, in the case of a veteran of World War II, before February 1, 1957, in the case of a veteran of the Korean conflict, before May 8, 1977, in the case of a Vietnam era veteran, or before the end of the two-year period beginning on the last day of the Persian Gulf War, in the case of a veteran of the Persian Gulf War, shall be deemed to have incurred such disability in the active military, naval, or air service.

Amendments

1991 - Pub. L. 102-83 renumbered section 602 of this title as this section. Pub. L. 102-25 substituted "the Vietnam era, or the Persian Gulf War" for "or the Vietnam era", struck out "or" before "before May 8, 1977", and inserted "or before the end of the two-year period beginning on the last day of the Persian Gulf War, in the case of a veteran of the Persian Gulf War," after "Vietnam era veterans,". 1986 - Pub. L. 99-576 struck out "his" before "discharge". 1982 - Pub. L. 97-295 substituted "before February 1, 1957, in the case of a veteran of the Korean conflict, or before May 8, 1977," for "or February 1, 1957, in the case of a veteran of the Korean conflict, or before the expiration of two years following termination of the Vietnam era". 1967 - Pub. L. 90-77 made the presumption relating to psychosis applicable to any veteran of the Vietnam era who developed an active psychosis within two years after his discharge from active service and before the expiration of two years following termination of the Vietnam era.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1967 AMENDMENT

Amendment by Pub. L. 90-77 effective first day of first calendar month which begins more than ten days after Aug. 31, 1967, see section 405 of Pub. L. 90-77, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.

[Wings]

x

x

x

280 F.2d 844

John H. FREDERICK

v.

UNITED STATES

No. 111-56

United States Court of Claims

July 15, 1960

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/280/280.F2d.844.111-56.html

[tssnave]

John - I'm behind you in your claim. Please keep us posted on how it plays out.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wings - GREAT citation, very interesting.

However, as a post Vietnam and pre Gulf vet I can't help but be a bit annoyed at this case. What it says to me is that the vet who served stateside (and not everybody goes to war just because the country is in a war) and has a a psychotic break w/in a specified period of service has a presumtive sc. However, the vet (like me) who served during a time of no conflict (though I stood ready with boots on to go if the balloon went up) has a psychotic break during that same time frame, well there's no presumption even though the combat era stateside vet and I had basically the same duties just different times in history.

I don't see any combat duty requirement it is just all a shell game with dates.

Just my two cents looking at it from my perspective.

Thanks again for the great post.

TS Snave

[Wings]

John - I'm behind you in your claim. Please keep us posted on how it plays out.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wings - GREAT citation, very interesting.

However, as a post Vietnam and pre Gulf vet I can't help but be a bit annoyed at this case. What it says to me is that the vet who served stateside (and not everybody goes to war just because the country is in a war) and has a a psychotic break w/in a specified period of service has a presumtive sc. However, the vet (like me) who served during a time of no conflict (though I stood ready with boots on to go if the balloon went up) has a psychotic break during that same time frame, well there's no presumption even though the combat era stateside vet and I had basically the same duties just different times in history.

I don't see any combat duty requirement it is just all a shell game with dates.

Just my two cents looking at it from my perspective.

Thanks again for the great post.

TS Snave

TS, I haven't really examined the presumptive dates for psychosis; would you mind posting those? I'll look into it as well. Let's look at the USC and CFR. ALSO, I just posted a CUE claim (1991) today which was granted based upon the "presumption of sound condition". See if those rules apply. ~Wings