Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

VA Disability Claims Articles

Ask Your VA Claims Question | Current Forum Posts Search | Rules | View All Forums
VA Disability Articles | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users

  • homepage-banner-2024-2.png

  • donate-be-a-hero.png

  • 0

Recieved A Decision On My Initial Claim Today

Rate this question


TANKERJOE0

Question

HELLO EVERYONE,I RECIEVED A DECISION ON MY INITIAL CLAIM TODAY.

I AM DISSAPPOINTED WITH THE DECISION AND AM IN NEED OF HELP ON WHAT MY NEXT STEPS ARE AS FAR AS AN APPEAL??

IM NOT SURE WHAT TO POST OR TELL SO EVERYONE CAN BE FAMILIAR WITH MY CLAIM??

ANY SUGGESTIONS WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.

THANKS SO MUCH

TANKERJOE0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 25
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Recommended Posts

I agree with rentalguy. The DRO hearing is the best move in this case.

Tankerjoe- You have some claims that not specific conditions. Are you claiming these as maybe GWS? If not, you may be better served to obtain a specific diagnoses. If I remember right, the bilateral arm and leg pain.

His list of complaints are consistant with GWI and I believe from his prior posts that GWI is the issue. If so, a specific diagnoses would kill the claims and nexus is not necissary as they are presumptive.

Unfortunatly, the VA does not recognise GWI as a ratable condition yet and it is very difficult to be SC for the non specific symptoms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree these claims could have relationship to GWS-but this decision shows why veterans have to be very carefully as to how they word these claims:

http://www.va.gov/vetapp08/files4/0835289.txt

The vet above was not a PGWV anyhow-but still the BVA has made its point.

I sure get your point here too Time-

If this can vet determine he has "qualifying chronic disabilities" under these specifc regs for GWVs, they could be found as presumptive :

http://www.va.gov/vetapp07/files2/0713620.txt

In part:

"2) For purposes of this subsection, the term 'qualifying

chronic disability' means a chronic disability resulting from

any of the following (or any combination of any of the

following):

(A) An undiagnosed illness.

(:rolleyes: A medically unexplained chronic multisymptom illness

(such as chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and

irritable bowel syndrome) that is defined by a cluster of

signs or symptoms.

© Any diagnosed illness that the Secretary determines

in regulations prescribed under subsection (d) warrants a

presumption of service-connection.

Section ©(1) of 1117 was amended to change some language

specific to undiagnosed illness, without substantively

changing the provision.

A whole new subsection (g) was added to Section 1117, as

follows:

(g) For purposes of this section, signs or symptoms that may

be a manifestation of an undiagnosed illness or a chronic

multisymptom illness include the following: (1) Fatigue. (2)

Unexplained rashes or other dermatological signs or symptoms.

(3) Headache. (4) Muscle pain. (5) Joint pain. (6)

Neurological signs and symptoms. (7) Neuropsychological signs

or symptoms. (8) Signs or symptoms involving the upper or

lower respiratory system. (9) Sleep disturbances. (10)

Gastrointestinal signs or symptoms. (11) Cardiovascular signs

or symptoms. (12) Abnormal weight loss. (13) Menstrual

disorders.

In addition, 38 U.S.C.A. Section 1118(a) was amended to add a

paragraph including the signs and symptoms of Section 1117(g)

as manifestation of an undiagnosed illness. The effective

dates of all of the cited amendments is March 1, 2002.

See also 66 Fed. Reg. 56,614, 56,615 (Nov. 9, 2001) (to be

codified at 38 C.F.R. § 3.317(a)(1)(i)).

A medically unexplained chronic multisymptom illness means a

diagnosed illness without conclusive pathophysiology or

etiology, that is characterized by overlapping symptoms and" etc- the decision contains more info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This paragragh is still true. "The Board finds that this claim must be denied because Gulf

War syndrome cannot properly be considered a "disability"

for purposes of VA benefits. See, e.g., 60 Fed. Reg. 6660,

61 (Feb. 3, 1995) ("Persian Gulf Syndrome" is not a disease

entity currently recognized by VA or commonly accepted within

the medical community)."

Untill Congress adds GWI (it is no longer GWS) as a Diagnostic Code the VA will not recognize it.

You make a good point Berta about the wording. I wonder if it is advisable to include some of wording of subsection (g) in a claim for GWI related conditions to prevent a rater from not applying it at the outset of the claim. It would help make it clear what the veteran is claiming.

(g) For purposes of this section, signs or symptoms that may

be a manifestation of an undiagnosed illness or a chronic

multisymptom illness include the following: (1) Fatigue. (2)

Unexplained rashes or other dermatological signs or symptoms.

(3) Headache. (4) Muscle pain. (5) Joint pain. (6)

Neurological signs and symptoms. (7) Neuropsychological signs

or symptoms. (8) Signs or symptoms involving the upper or

lower respiratory system. (9) Sleep disturbances. (10)

Gastrointestinal signs or symptoms. (11) Cardiovascular signs

or symptoms. (12) Abnormal weight loss. (13) Menstrual

disorders.

Edited by timetowinarace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Berta..

You said,

"Cleveland VARO employees even filed a greivance against their bosses because they were pressured into denying claims rather then take the time to actually work on them."

There is little doubt in my mind that this statement is true. Of course, my next question is why would management pressure employees to deny claims? There must be a reason for them to do this.

Other than outright contempt (hatred) for Veterans, the only possible reason I can think of would be a greed motive. It does not make sense to me that someone would go to work for the VA, work up to management, while hating Veterans enough to pressure employees into denying their claims.

There HAD to be "something in it" for management to do this.

I do realize that there are many VA employees who think that Veterans are welfare bumbs..that they fake PTSD..dont deserve their benefits, etc, that is they have a very bad overall attitude toward Veterans.

In the Vietnam Era, if we wore our uniform at airports and stuff, we often got "booooood" by the public. My son, who was at the airport in his uniform, (just a week ago) was Thanked for his service at least twice, and given applause once.

So, I think the public perception of Veterans is definately changing for the better. And I agree with Shinseki that VA employees with a bad attitude toward Veterans should be fired.

Still, for me it boils down to money. I think that Cleveland wanted employees to deny deserving Veterans because there is some fraud going on..and they can funnel that money to "fake" Veterans and then divide the pot. There is no other logical explanation, in my opinion for Va management to do this, IMHO, because contempt towards Veterans would not be as big a motivator as personal greed. I sure hope this comes out on March 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Broncovet-

The employees are being pressured to finish the claim as fast as possible so that the EP code can be noted and in the Morning reports it then looks like they worked on the claim and 'finished' it.

The only way the employees in most of the ROs can satisfy the EP stats is to produce a certain quantity of claims they have decided (finished) and the only way they can do that is to deny the claim without considering the evidence.

The VA Inspector Generals report of 2005 (still at their web site)raised quite a broo ha ha - as it revealed- from personal interviews of claims personnel- that they simply didnt have the time to do their work properly.

Bart Strickland NVLSP is the lawyer who I believe coined the "Hamster Wheeel" phrase- when the ROs do this we claimants get on a hamster wheel and cant get off-because the VA will continually deny the claim to take to EP code everytine they have to respond to the claimant.

This "Quantity not quality" MOS of the VAROS has allowed many directors to be paid big bonuses for their ROs appeared to have done work that was never done properly.

This has been discussed in many hearing over the past few years- I read Rich Cohen hearing brief the day before the hearing he was at and I called him because he had overlooked a very important facet of all this crap-how the VCAA has made this all easy for these employees to continually do piss poor work.

He did mention what we discussed in that H VAC hearing-

I could write a book on how we all came to the October Incident fiasco.This started years ago.

But the book has been written already by vets and widows who have griped on paper many times to VA and to the H VAC etc

Once the IG report is public maybe the large News outlets will pick up this story.

Many vets and widows do not even know about shreddergate yet and might well be victims of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tankerjoeo, I just wanted to chime and say that I agree with the NOD route. A reconsideration is not always what it is cracked up to be. It may have been the best way to go for a handful...but generally it is not the best way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use