hypertension Soc And Partial Grant

[Ricky]

Spoke with someone on the 1-800 today. They told me that the DRO had given me a partial grant of my claims on the NOD. She could not tell me what was granted, percentage level etc.... She did say the file is currently with a veterans service rep who would be sending out a SOC within the next few days. Not what I hoped to hear but at least it is movement. Nod was submitted in Aug 05. All claims were already service connected but improperly rated (I felt so).

Feb 05 stroke - SC but no payment. asked for 100% for six months as directed in part 4.

Residuals of stroke - SC rated at 10 percent. IMO from treating Neuro guy, board cert 30 year experience providing that nerve damage has resulted in complete loss of function of left arm/hand, leg/foot and incomplete severe paralysis of left side of face with no recovery possible. Asked for 100% due to complete loss of function of hand and foot and 20 percent for face.

Hypertension - SC rated at 20 percent. Asked for increase to 60% based upon daily readings in excess of 225/135. This lead to Feb 05 Stroke and continues todate. Currently on 5 Sep HBP meds.

Asked for SC for joint pain which SMR's indicate Fibro present (GWV) along with SC for Gerd.

Knowing my luck the paritial grant will be SC for joint pain and gerd with 0% rating.

I will let you guys know since all of you were instrumental in providing me with information which helped me work through the NOD. If it is a bad decision it will be because they failed to apply regs properly and did not use my civilian health care records and IMO's from my treating doctors.

[Ricky]

Still no answer from the RO. I called today and was told that the statement of the case was mailed on the 27th of Jan. However, the only thing I have received as of today is the lonley seperate 10 percent rating on the back issue. The 1800 said that they did not know what the problems was as the computer was showing the my C-File had been returned to the file room. When and if I ever do get a SOC could it possibly also have and increase in some of my ratings that were appealed or will I get new and seperate rating decisions like I received on the back issue?

[Ricky]

Received it today. Total denial of claims. De Novo Review wording same as rating denial in July 05. Evidence provided by neurologist was listed in evidence section but no mention in reasons section as to why it carried no weight simply the same wording as used to deny claim orgininally. Oh well - guess I will spend another 4 weeks of sleepless nights preparing the VA 9 in hopes of not seeing the same results again.

[john999]

Ricky

Ask for a personal hearing with the DRO before you go to the BVA. It worked for me. I brought my wife to testify and it was such a sad tale I was almost crying for myself.

[Ricky]

John thanks for the input. Since this is my first effort at this appeal stuff I kinda did not know which way to turn. I assume that I have to prepare the VA 9. Do I go ahead and submitt it? or do I wait on the RO's reply to my request for a personal hearing at the RO - and submitt it in time to beat the 60 day clock? I assume that a DRO hearing will take months to years just like the NOD. Even if I submitt the appeal to the board I want to meet at the RO. I simply want the incompent idiot that conducted this review to explain the reasons and bases for the decision. In the original NOD I provided evidence (VA generated) that proved that someone VAMC or VARO falsified my medical records (yes the false info is plain as day) to deny this claim. The evidence provided was not even listed as evidence they reviewed. It is as though it simply dissappeared. I assume that since the service center manager reviewed the SOC (yeah I bet that really happened) as evidenced by his signature on the SOC he approves of such actions. As it is clear that fraudulent info was used I am going to the US Attorneys office. I understand that they normally do not want to get involved but I will camp outside their door until they take action against the VA or have me arrested. The later would be better as I am sure I would drum up some news coverage if that happened. I have already fired off a heated email to the attention of the service center manager which will end up with some incompentent monkey behind a key board so I do not expect much to come of that. Last question Do I have to submitt an additional request for the DRO review or just ask for it on the VA 9. Thank you guys for any input.

Doctor Ricky Hicks - thanks to VARO I am now a doctor. The evidence reveiwed lists three statements as " Medical evidence, statement by DR. Hicks". Hell if I had know this I could have provided some excellent medical opinions in support of my claim. The sad thing is the original rating contained the same statements which I spent two paragraphs on in my NOD explaining that there was no such person as DR. Hicks involved in this case.

[Guest jstacy]

Ricky, fill out the form 9. Get it out of the VARO. My terminology of the VARO is this. Veterans Always Ripped Off. I once had faith in the VARO'S and the Veterans Service Officers but Now the only faith I have is to get the claims out of the hands of these incompetent worthless imitations of human beings. You may hace a chance with the BVA. Be advised though there is a long waiting period.

So get it out of their hands as soon as you can, Before you wind up as bitter as I am.

[Ricky]

JSTACY - my friend I think that I am already at the same point you are at. Re-reading the SOC in an attempt to determine what it is telling me that I need to win the claim I just become more confused and flustered. How do I fight and with what when the SOC on an issue awarded 10 percent on an issue which I requested a 50 percent evaluation reads: "A FUTHER REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE DISCLOSED VETERAN'S SYMPTOMATOLOGY MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR AN EVALUATION GREATER THAN 10 PERCENT. SPECIFICALLY, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY RECENT ACTIVE PROCESS." What was it? Did it meet the requirement or not? no evidence? this was on my claim for stroke which occured in Jan 05. The claim was submitted in Feb 05 with CT SCAN, MRI, hospital statements, neurologist's reports, doctor reports. They left it at 10 percent but back dated the award to Feb 2003. The Stroke did not occur until Jan 05 so where did the Feb 03 date come from?

MY GOD. THERE HAS TO BE A WAY TO CHANGE THIS SYSTEM WHICH CALLS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY BY THESE IDIOTS. THIS IS NOT SOME SIMPLE B.S. ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM. THIS IS A SYSTEM BASED ON U.S. LAW. I know alot of you guys have been fighting for a long time and I am only a babe who just entered the system. however, I am a grown man and I do not like to cry so I have to do something to bring light on this problem no matter what it may be.