diabetes Diabetes

[SLEDGE]

Update,

My buddy has won his 100% and back pay to 1989, the year that I first helped him file a claim.

But he is messed up pretty bad from not getting the proper diagnosis from the Navy and then the VA.

He had it- then not, he had it- then not etc.

He is now recovering from the loss of one foot lost due to complications.

His new lawyer says he will get millions from the pending lawsuit and the VA is trying to 'LET'S MAKE A DEAL' frequently.

He just tells them he has a lawyer and to take their proposals to her.

They have turned down some large settlements so far and they keep getting bigger.

His case has so much medical stupidity in it that the NAVY is also talking to his lawyer.

More updates as they become available, giggle-giggle.

sledge

[Ricky]

Sledge,

Sorry to hear about the medical problems your buddy has gone through. You are commended for standing by and helping a fellow vet wade through this incompentent, wasteful and down right criminal system. If only we could get an eye for an eye! The money is good but it will never replace the depression, heartache, loss of limb and probably early death. I wish him the best and hope that he gets the biggest settlement that has ever been heard of. Once again thanks for being part of the vet team.

Ricky

[Guest Berta]

Tom-you did great work for this vet!

Ricky is right-money cannot replace health but I too hope he gets plenty out of them for this.

When it comes down to the wire VA doctors can ,and should be, held to the same standards within any non- VA medical community.

Has he filed a formal Section 1151 claim along with the FTCA?

Negotiations are fun- I asked the OGC point blank- when they started to negotiate with me-(I had no lawyer) what the top end figure was that the VA was willing to settle on and we could make this go fast if he told me their high end and I would accept that. Of course he was shocked that I even asked this (why not?)and would not tell me.

If this vet goes into federal court it certainly will take more time.I hope his health allows him to go through that.

Edited March 14, 2006 by Berta

[SLEDGE]

His lawyer does not get paid until the client wins and she is wealthy.

sledge

[frosty69]

DOES ANYONE KNOW IF A VETERAN CAN get service-connected for diabtes 11, from agent orange, before the 2001 starting date, that the va put in their rules and regulations, or is it a waste of time. I have been denied many times, before this 2001 starting date, even though it is in my medical files, that I had diabetes diet controlled from 1994, but wasn't told until 2003, that I had diabetes. I got 20% for diabetes in 2003, then they went back one month until dec 2002, for the starting date. the VA denies by stating that I need new and material eveidence, but don't even mention the 1994 date, even though I send in the same medical paper, on every appeal, I been thinking about a 1151, but don't want to waste my time, if they don't approve before the 2001 date.

[Guest jstacy]

Frosty If the VA diagnosed DM in 1994 it could have been treated as an informal claim. You may be able to connect from the date the VA diqagnosed it.

[Guest Berta]

Frosty - as long as the initial claim with the DMII listed was NOT a pension claim but for service connection-

the DMII -listed as NSC- can get you more retro-

The VBM by NVLSP (the lawyers who won Beverly Nehmer's claim and thus the Nehmer Court Order) give this example:

Vietnam vet files claim for an service connection of an ulcer -April 1,1989.

The VA denies the ulcer claim and lists the veteran's DMII as "NSC" on the decision.

The vet claims DMII on Oct 23, 2001 ( New AO DMII Regs dated May 8, 2001)

The VA grants the SC for the DMII.

The proper retro date is April 1, 1989. YES-April, 1989! (I Love Nehmer)

(VBM 2005 edition, page 610)

VA has snookered many vets out of AO retro-has your year of appeal passed without filing a NOD- if so I would file a CUE claim if I were you-

A Cue due to the provisions of the Nehmer Decision

Nehmer V United States Veterans Administration,284 F.3d 1158 (9th Circuit 2002) ,

38 CFR 3.816 (2005)

Tell them it is a Cue claim under the criteria for CUE within 38 CFR 3.400 and 38 USCS 5109 A.

It involves a final and unappealed VARO decision.

The error ,had it not occurred , would have manifestly altered the outcome, in a proper retroactive award back to 1994.

The Nehmer decision is clear evidence of the CUE.

There is some CUE stuff at my blog.

This BVA decision shows exactly how the Nehmer decision should affect you-

http://www.va.gov/vetapp04/files/0402768.txt

I sure would use this BVA decision to support your CUE claim- you could state that although BVA decisions are not binding,this claim is so similiar to yours and fully supports the case law that VARO clearly and erroneously did not apply, to your detriment, in determining your proper retro amount, that it is being submitted as evidence to support your CUE claim.

Edited March 16, 2006 by Berta