Should I Reopen This Claim

[CITY BOY]

I filed a claim in 1985 for a unspecified genitourinary condition, which got denied. I did not file an appeal back then because, I did not want to go thru the horrible testing again to gain evidence. In the year 2000 I filed again thru the American Legion to reopen the claim for the 1985 condition, and the V.A. found that I did not file adequate New and Material evidence to reopen the claim. So, I went back to the drawing board and found that I was diagnosed with Chronic Prostatitis in the Marines, in my service medical file. So, the American Legion filed for the new condition and I received a 10% compensation for the Prostatitis condition. Well, just recently in january 2009 I had Chronic Prostatitis upgraded to 20% and they also found a Urethal Bulbar Stricture while testing me within my groin and the V.A. doctor said that the Chronic Prostatitis and the Urethal Bulbar Stricture is definetly connected back to when I was in the service. My question is can I reopen the 1985 claim for the Urethal Bulbar Stricture as the unspecified genitourinary condition as new and material evidence? Please help, otherwise I will open as new claim. Thanx

[Pete53]

Welcome to Hadit.

You probably need to ask for claim to be reopened and submit new evidence.

[jbasser]

City Boy, did your original denial mention the prostatitis in the letter as evidence. Being that it was listed in the SMR and you fuiled for an unspecified disease of the urinary tract and you actually had a disease listed in the SMR.

I would like to see the exact wording the VA used for the denial.

I smell a rat.

J

[Philip Rogers]

I would file a CUE claim. You will probably need an IMO to present as evidence. I assisted a friend, now deceased, win his CUE claim, a few yrs back, for the same thing and he won 20% back to 1955. jmo

pr

I filed a claim in 1985 for a unspecified genitourinary condition, which got denied. I did not file an appeal back then because, I did not want to go thru the horrible testing again to gain evidence. In the year 2000 I filed again thru the American Legion to reopen the claim for the 1985 condition, and the V.A. found that I did not file adequate New and Material evidence to reopen the claim. So, I went back to the drawing board and found that I was diagnosed with Chronic Prostatitis in the Marines, in my service medical file. So, the American Legion filed for the new condition and I received a 10% compensation for the Prostatitis condition. Well, just recently in january 2009 I had Chronic Prostatitis upgraded to 20% and they also found a Urethal Bulbar Stricture while testing me within my groin and the V.A. doctor said that the Chronic Prostatitis and the Urethal Bulbar Stricture is definetly connected back to when I was in the service. My question is can I reopen the 1985 claim for the Urethal Bulbar Stricture as the unspecified genitourinary condition as new and material evidence? Please help, otherwise I will open as new claim. Thanx

Edited July 31, 2009 by Philip Rogers

[jbasser]

Pr, It is amazing how two minds think alike.

J

[sharon]

I filed a claim in 1985 for a unspecified genitourinary condition, which got denied. I did not file an appeal back then because, I did not want to go thru the horrible testing again to gain evidence. In the year 2000 I filed again thru the American Legion to reopen the claim for the 1985 condition, and the V.A. found that I did not file adequate New and Material evidence to reopen the claim. So, I went back to the drawing board and found that I was diagnosed with Chronic Prostatitis in the Marines, in my service medical file. So, the American Legion filed for the new condition and I received a 10% compensation for the Prostatitis condition. Well, just recently in january 2009 I had Chronic Prostatitis upgraded to 20% and they also found a Urethal Bulbar Stricture while testing me within my groin and the V.A. doctor said that the Chronic Prostatitis and the Urethal Bulbar Stricture is definetly connected back to when I was in the service. My question is can I reopen the 1985 claim for the Urethal Bulbar Stricture as the unspecified genitourinary condition as new and material evidence? Please help, otherwise I will open as new claim. Thanx

What exactly is an unspecified genitourinary condition? If I am correct, were you not digonised with Urethal Bulbar Stricture in 2009. Therefore, was it not a part of your claim in 1985. File for it as a new claim and if the evidence support it, ask for an earlier effective date.

[CITY BOY]

City Boy, did your original denial mention the prostatitis in the letter as evidence. Being that it was listed in the SMR and you fuiled for an unspecified disease of the urinary tract and you actually had a disease listed in the SMR.

I would like to see the exact wording the VA used for the denial.

I smell a rat.

J

I believe the info you are looking for is:Service connection for this condition was denied by rating action of February 8 1985 as no chronic condition was shown in service and no residual disability was found on Va examination, Dated October 16 1984. There is no evidence of a timely filed appeal with this decision.

The veteran sought to reopen the claim on June 21 2000 citing an unspecified genitourinary condition manifested by burning urination and post void dribbling . Rating action of October 12 2000 found new and material evidence to reopen the claim had not been submitted

Copies of Service Medical Records from November 1978 thru Apr 1983 submitted by the veteran relate to treament for a non-specific urethritis and reference prostatitis.

After all was said and done they gave me connection for Chronic Prostatitis in

April 2002 10%. My SMR clearly states Chronic Protratitis and urethritis all over the place, hard to miss.

Also it states SMR records considered in the 1985 decision noted treatment for non-specified urethritis with normal findings on subsequent examination.

Va examination dated 10-16-84 noted the veterans history and reported the veteran was asymptomatic and a normal physical examination was indicated. A diagnosis of status post non-specified urethritis was given.

I hope this enough. Thanx