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.

[Guest jstacy]

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.

Current active process, I think these people are trying to play Doctor. It is amazing how they interpet the law to a negative advantage for the Veteran. I believe the BVA can straighten this out.

Your statement just told me they did not even look at your claim using the correct facts. I would file the form 9 and consider filing a CUE claim. Remember dont let the 60 days pass bt. File the form 9 asap.

[pearl]

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.

Ricky, the VA unfortunately often sends out statements like that ( double talk). I wonder if is done to confuse and throw us off track. I would photocopy that page of your decision highlight the inconsistent statements, and ask for clarification of the fact. You are in a catch 22 situation with the form 9. If you file it this enables your claim to be put on the docket for the VBA. If you ask for a hearing with the VA RO they will take no action at the VBA on your claim until everything going on at the RO level is completed. I personally would still file the form9 as it will probably take at least a year before your claim goes before the board. In the mean time maybe the R O will do right by you. If not the time that has accrued is still not wasted since your case will come up by the date the form 9 was filed.

Pearl