diabetes Nod & Cue?

[atlb685]

Hello all!

I am in the process of filing a NOD for my finace. He has been rated for Diabetes Insipidus (DI) secondary to a head injury he obtained in service. As I have been researching his disease, all the research has shown that DI presents itself almost immediately after the injury (within 3-5 weeks). He was in service for more than a year after the accident (which occurred in 2002) and the DI diagnosis was not awarded to him until 2008--when we requested that he be formally evaluated for it. He was not back-dated for it. Since the disease is directly related to the head trauma (by their own admission) and it would have presented itself within weeks of the accident, could this qualify as a CUE? I even have lab results from 6 months after the accident showing that he was clinically dehydrated, yet the military never followed up on this. He should have been diagnosed while he was in-service.

Is it appropriate for me to point all of this out in his NOD, or is there a completely different process that I have to go through? I don't want to put the cart in front of the horse if it is going to hurt him...

Thanks in advance for your help!

Jami

[broncovet]

I think most of the long term hadit readers would agree that you will help your case by doing a very

thorough job on your NOD. Be Very specific..tell your side of the story as to why you think the rating is too low, or why it should be service connected. Thoroughly research the rating criteria..and also your C file, then state examples of why you think your symptoms of x qualifies you for the rating criteria of ________ or how it appears that symptom was overlooked entirely when your claim was rated. Cite evidence at a medical examination where your doc reported your symptoms.

The better job you do with a NOD, IMHO, the more likely you are to be successful in your appeal.

[broncovet]

Jami

Also, UNLESS you are filing a NOD for a decision MORE than a year ago, I would not concern yourself with CUE at this point. REASON: The CUE standard is higher than a "normal" appeal, and you dont need to prove Clear Unmistakable Error if you are filing a regular NOD that is timely.

Since CUE is more difficult to prove, then why make it harder for yourself if it is unnecessary? JMHO

[atlb685]

So we could file for a CUE at any point? As far as the DI goes, they recognized it and rated him for it at his last C&P, so at least we have that covered. I believe it should be higher, based on their own rating criteria. But if we send in the NOD, we can still file for CUE at a later date? I just want to make sure I am doing this right since I have no knowledge of the inner-working of the VA. Even if his DI gets increased, it probably won't help him since he is already at 90%. I just want them to know that we disagree and that he qualifies for the higher rating.

In my (completely untrained) opinion, they have made a CUE because of the fact that he exhibited symptoms of DI while he was in service. Since they have connected it directly to the head injury, I would think that we'd have a pretty solid case.

[carlie]

Hello all!

I am in the process of filing a NOD for my finace. He has been rated for Diabetes Insipidus (DI) secondary to a head injury he obtained in service.

When did VA grant SC for head injury ?

What did VA rate his head injury under ?

Do you know what Diagnostic Code ?

What percentage did VA grant for his head injury ?

What percentage did VA grant for his DI ?

As I have been researching his disease, all the research has shown that DI presents itself almost immediately after the injury (within 3-5 weeks). He was in service for more than a year after the accident (which occurred in 2002) and the DI diagnosis was not awarded to him until 2008--when we requested that he be formally evaluated for it. He was not back-dated for it. Since the disease is directly related to the head trauma (by their own admission) and it would have presented itself within weeks of the accident, could this qualify as a CUE?

VA is not going to SC or pay compensation prior to a claim being filed for it,

in most cases.

This would not be a CUE.

X I even have lab results from 6 months after the accident showing that he was clinically dehydrated, yet the military never followed up on this. He should have been diagnosed while he was in-service.

Is it appropriate for me to point all of this out in his NOD, or is there a completely different process that I have to go through? I don't want to put the cart in front of the horse if it is going to hurt him...

You requested SC for _______________________ ?

VA denied ________ , Reason for denial ______________?

What part of the rating decision are you Nodding ?

carlie

[Berta]

I dont see a CUE here at all.

Unless-did he file a claim within one year after his discharge which they denied and he did not appeal-but re-opened with the present claim?

It is a shame that due to the Feres Doctrine you cannot sue the military. I think they committed malpractice on him.

The VA will use the date the claim was filed -in almost every case- as the EED- the day they will pay retro back to.

If he receives SSA solely for the same disability and the EED of the SSA award goes back at least a year prior to the date the VA gave him for EED-

that would be significant evidence to tell VA about in the NOD, and then ask them for more retro that way.

If the above is fact- that he gets SSA for the exact same disability -diabetes insipidus-then the VA owes him more comp due to TDIU.But he needs to apply for it.

I didnt put the TDIU form here as we dont know yet-is he still working?

What rating did they give him?

And what Diagnostic code did they rate under?

I am familiar with this condition a little when it affects pituitary glands-

If the VA didnt use the right diagnostic code maybe the rating should be higher.

[carlie]

Berta,

She posted, " I even have lab results from 6 months after the accident showing that he was clinically dehydrated" etc...

Wouldn't they need glucose readings for DI ? ?

I do not think a notation of clinically dehydrated would be supportive enough for a SC grant,

more medical evidence than that would be required.

carlie