Venereal Disease

[babyray]

Has anyone ever had SC for venereal disease? What evidence was used?

babyray

[rentalguy1]

38 CFR 4.31 Zero Percent Evaluations

In every instance where the schedule does not provide a zero percent evaluation for a diagnostic code, a zero percent evaluation shall be assigned when the requirements for a compensable evaluation are not met.

[Berta]

what experts here are pointing vets in the wrong direction?

VA uses Venereal disease as a pretty broad term sometimes.

As soon as I recalled that Emily's husband had syphilis I posted that info here right away-

I had to check her BVA case first.It took time to find it.

BTW I think all of us are experts in many ways-

[rentalguy1]

Berta....you've got mail <_<

[sharon]

38 CFR 4.31 Zero Percent Evaluations

In every instance where the schedule does not provide a zero percent evaluation for a diagnostic code, a zero percent evaluation shall be assigned when the requirements for a compensable evaluation are not met.

Yes, this is true, if a condition exist. ie you cannot file for diabetes (that you don't have) because you were exposed to agent orange. All presumptive conditions would automaticly be assigned a 0 percent (betting on the come). Don't get it twisted. Peace out <_<

[rentalguy1]

done

[Berta]

This might help someone:

I had mentioned a local vet who had inservice STD- here is part of the response I prepared for his claim

Possible prostatitus 12-12-62 –Not consistent with VD but consistent with DMII

( in his SMRS)

Penile Candidia* or balantitus* –multiple times in SMRs-* I supported my opinion on this basis:

"The veteran was treated 4 -5 or more times for ‘gonorrhea’. His symptoms were a mucoid discharge from penis. The SMRs clearly indicate that the VD or gonorrhea diagnosis was never definitive."

I helped him prove this was a very early manifestation of inservice diabetes.

The response I prepared went on to include many Exhibits:

Enclosed as Exhibit H, “Men’s Thrush” (penile candidia) http://www.bbc.co.uk

And Exhibit I “Balanitis” http://www/emedicine.com, the VA can clearly see that not only are these conditions indicative of diabetes but also, as the Balanitus article states,

a medical pitfall is a “failure to consider diabetes as the most common underlying condition for balanitis." The veteran reported having sexual contact before these episodes yet the in-service doctors never considered these two other causes for the penile discharge, as a manifestation of in-service diabetes."

Oddly enough this information was just icing on the cake.The response was more detailed in another respect.

I was helping the vet's rep on the claim and they came to my home-

I had just downloaded his BVA decision and one word in it caught my eye right away-

they didnt know what the word meant.

It was the single most important word in his SMRS. He won his claim.

We cannot overlook a single word or leave any stone whatsoever unturned.

The veteran probably never had any Sexually transmitted disease inservice at all.

His symptoms were consistent with diabetes.

In the ten years that had passed (or more) since he filed this claim- not a single vet rep had ever read his SMRs.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Berta