Jump to content

Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts 
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules 

  • tbirds-va-claims-struggle (1).png

  • Donate Now and Keep Us Helping You

     

  • 0

Question On Informal Claim From 1978 C&p

Rate this question


carlie

Question

This is a C&P examination done four months after separation in 1978.

(Claimants having C&P's now should get a good laugh

at C&P's from the 1970's.)

Question :

Would Tinnitus alleged be considered an informal claim for Tinnitus,being that it is noted on the C&P examination.

FYI - this C&P was ordered as the result of a claim for Otitis Media and Hearing Loss.

Also - I believe the reg for Tinnitus (at the time of this 1978 C&P) read something close to

Tinnitus had to be the result of a head injury.

Also - this C&P examiner stated that I was taking Parafon Forte and that this RX

is an anti-depressant. Parafon Forte was RX'd to me for neck and back muscle spasms,

another doctor has written that Parafon Forte has never been used for an anti-depressant.

Thanks,

carlie

post-60-1252530490_thumb.jpg

Edited by carlie

Carlie passed away in November 2015 she is missed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 1
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Top Posters For This Question

Posted Images

1 answer to this question

Recommended Posts

Here is a portion of a BVA decision which deals with the question:

The veteran argues that an earlier effective date is

warranted for his left ear tinnitus because he did not have

this condition prior to service and was service-connected for

hearing loss of the left ear with the effective date of

September 10, 1993. The veteran also contends the notation

of unilateral tinnitus of the left ear in the October 1993 VA

examination supports his contentions, implying that VA should

have interpreted the examination as a claim for service

connection. As such, he maintains that the effective date of

service connection for the tinnitus should be retroactive to

the hearing loss effective date of September 10, 1993.

The basic facts are not in dispute. As the RO noted, the

veteran's initial formal or informal application for service

connection for left ear tinnitus was filed with VA on

September 30, 2005, and indeed, the veteran does not contend

otherwise.

Unless specifically provided otherwise in the statute, the

effective date of an award based on an original claim for

compensation benefits shall be the date of receipt of the

claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later.

38 U.S.C.A. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. The effective date

of an award of disability compensation shall be the day

following separation from service or the date entitlement

arose if the claim is received within one year of separation,

otherwise the date of claim or the date entitlement arose,

whichever is later. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5110(:D; 38 C.F.R.

§ 3.400(B)(2).

A specific claim in the form prescribed by the Secretary must

be filed in order for benefits to be paid or furnished to any

individual under the laws administered by VA. 38 U.S.C.A.

§ 5101(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.151(a). The term "claim" or

"application" means a formal or informal communication in

writing requesting a determination of entitlement or

evidencing a belief in entitlement to a benefit. 38 C.F.R.

§ 3.1(p).

Any communication or action indicating an intent to apply for

one or more benefits under the laws administered by VA, from

a veteran or his representative, may be considered an

informal claim. Such informal claim must identify the

benefit sought. Upon receipt of an informal claim, if a

formal claim has not been filed, an application form will be

forwarded to the claimant for execution. If received within

one year from the date it was sent to the veteran, it will be

considered filed as of the date of receipt of the informal

claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155.

Here, the RO granted service connection for the left ear and

assigned a 10 percent evaluation, effective September 30,

2005, the date the veteran's original claim of service

connection for tinnitus was filed with VA. An effective date

of an award of service connection is not based on the

earliest medical evidence showing a causal connection as the

veteran contended through his representative, but on the date

that the application upon which service connection was

eventually awarded was filed with VA. Lalonde v. West, 12

Vet. App. 377, 382 (1999).

This is a C&P examination done four months after separation in 1978.

(Claimants having C&P's now should get a good laugh

at C&P's from the 1970's.)

Question :

Would Tinnitus alleged be considered an informal claim for Tinnitus,being that it is noted on the C&P examination.

FYI - this C&P was ordered as the result of a claim for Otitis Media and Hearing Loss.

Also - I believe the reg for Tinnitus (at the time of this 1978 C&P) read something close to

Tinnitus had to be the result of a head injury.

Also - this C&P examiner stated that I was taking Parafon Forte and that this RX

is an anti-depressant. Parafon Forte was RX'd to me for neck and back muscle spasms,

another doctor has written that Parafon Forte has never been used for an anti-depressant.

Thanks,

carlie

post-60-1252530490_thumb.jpg

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


  • Tell a friend

    Love HadIt.com’s VA Disability Community Vets helping Vets since 1997? Tell a friend!
  • Recent Achievements

    • LtDave earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • HillTopVet earned a badge
      First Post
    • kidva went up a rank
      Contributor
    • AFguy1999 went up a rank
      Rookie
    • kidva earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Our picks

    • These decisions have made a big impact on how VA disability claims are handled, giving veterans more chances to get benefits and clearing up important issues.

      Service Connection

      Frost v. Shulkin (2017)
      This case established that for secondary service connection claims, the primary service-connected disability does not need to be service-connected or diagnosed at the time the secondary condition is incurred 1. This allows veterans to potentially receive secondary service connection for conditions that developed before their primary condition was officially service-connected. 

      Saunders v. Wilkie (2018)
      The Federal Circuit ruled that pain alone, without an accompanying diagnosed condition, can constitute a disability for VA compensation purposes if it results in functional impairment 1. This overturned previous precedent that required an underlying pathology for pain to be considered a disability.

      Effective Dates

      Martinez v. McDonough (2023)
      This case dealt with the denial of an earlier effective date for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) 2. It addressed issues around the validity of appeal withdrawals and the consideration of cognitive impairment in such decisions.

      Rating Issues

      Continue Reading on HadIt.com
      • 1 review
    • I met with a VSO today at my VA Hospital who was very knowledgeable and very helpful.  We decided I should submit a few new claims which we did.  He told me that he didn't need copies of my military records that showed my sick call notations related to any of the claims.  He said that the VA now has entire military medical record on file and would find the record(s) in their own file.  It seemed odd to me as my service dates back to  1981 and spans 34 years through my retirement in 2015.  It sure seemed to make more sense for me to give him copies of my military medical record pages that document the injuries as I'd already had them with me.  He didn't want my copies.  Anyone have any information on this.  Much thanks in advance.  
      • 4 replies
    • Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
      Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection. See COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL

      This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:

      Current Diagnosis.   (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)

      In-Service Event or Aggravation.
      Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”
      • 0 reviews
    • Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability rating 
    • VA has gotten away with (mis) interpreting their  ambigious, , vague regulations, then enforcing them willy nilly never in Veterans favor.  

      They justify all this to congress by calling themselves a "pro claimant Veteran friendly organization" who grants the benefit of the doubt to Veterans.  

      This is not true, 

      Proof:  

          About 80-90 percent of Veterans are initially denied by VA, pushing us into a massive backlog of appeals, or worse, sending impoverished Veterans "to the homeless streets" because  when they cant work, they can not keep their home.  I was one of those Veterans who they denied for a bogus reason:  "Its been too long since military service".  This is bogus because its not one of the criteria for service connection, but simply made up by VA.  And, I was a homeless Vet, albeit a short time,  mostly due to the kindness of strangers and friends. 

          Hadit would not be necessary if, indeed, VA gave Veterans the benefit of the doubt, and processed our claims efficiently and paid us promptly.  The VA is broken. 

          A huge percentage (nearly 100 percent) of Veterans who do get 100 percent, do so only after lengthy appeals.  I have answered questions for thousands of Veterans, and can only name ONE person who got their benefits correct on the first Regional Office decision.  All of the rest of us pretty much had lengthy frustrating appeals, mostly having to appeal multiple multiple times like I did. 

          I wish I know how VA gets away with lying to congress about how "VA is a claimant friendly system, where the Veteran is given the benefit of the doubt".   Then how come so many Veterans are homeless, and how come 22 Veterans take their life each day?  Va likes to blame the Veterans, not their system.   
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use