diabetes Cue For Eed

[Judy]

Copied from previous thread from JBreckenridge....

QUOTE:"

Judy, you may be a Nehmer class member. What was your husband service connected for, and what were the causes of death and contributed factors on his death certificate, and was he ever on the ground in Vietnam? When did he die, and when did you file your claim?

DIC Nehmer example: Veitnam veteran dies of complications of diabetes (such as arteriosclerotic heart disease) in the mid 90s. Widow applies for DIC, and is denied because the vet isn't service connected for a heart condition. The Nehmer case later comes down and per 38 CFR 3.816, the widow can reopen the claim asking for service connected death based on complications of diabetes due to herbicide exposure. THe effective date would be date of death or date of the first claim, or the first of the month in which he died, depending on how the dates work out. This is one of the few exceptions for granting an effective date prior to a change in law.

You may want to start your own topic here in Claims Research""UNQUOTE:

Thank you for your information, here's my extremely brief scenario.

Vet was SC 100% for cancer. Died in 1990 and death certificate read (arteriosclerotic heart diease...no contributing or underlying causes on death certificate...issued by County coroner...no autopsy done). I (widow) file for SC DIC and its denied "no causal relationship/nexus between death certificate COD and SC DIC of cancer). I appealed; denied again; appealed again, remanded by VBA to RO and denied again. All this took over 5 years...I gave up. Then , 10 + years later, I REOPENED claim; denied again. I submitted IMO and new evidence and CLAIM WAS GRANTED (for SC DIC!) but retro pay only back to date of RE OPENED claim...2 years of retro.

Does this NEHMER case help me in my effort to CUE them for EED (on the UNappealed Final Decision issued in 1995? It sounds like it definitely does. There is NO AO involved here, vet was never in NAM and no exposure to AO.

ALSO, I have IMO for this new claim but am reluctant to submit it on the "first go round" as they always deny your claim. I thought it would be better to hold the IMO and then submit it as additional new evidence after the original CUE is denied... does that sound feasible or am I being foolish here?

thanks to all for contributing

Judy

[Berta]

The National Veterans Legal Services Program- a Pro bono law firm- writes the VBM and then Lexis Nexis sells it.

EVery single AO vet and AO widow has NVLSP to thank for the Nehmer Decision.

They hardly ever step in to represent a vet or widow-they are too busy fighting at the H VAC etc for everyone's rights and for proper resolves of their claims.

They do help OIF and OEF vets in their Lawyers for Warriors Programs.

I would have never won my claims without the VBM.

I would tell you much much more about how NVLSP has altered the lives of vets and widows but this post would be too long.

You do have a good point-

I used to get two copies every year and buy them both but would donate the extra copy to my former vet reps.

I assumed they were reading it and had it in a good spot for veterans to use when they came into the office.

I was wrong -only one rep ever opened the VBMs I donated and then they moved the copies up to a second story office area to collect dust.

I feel every paid vet rep can well afford to buy the VBM to help vets.The proceeds go to the Pro Bono efforts of NVLSP to continue their extraordinary work for all of us.One of the boggest problem we have is having vet reps who aere not up on the regs and nevcer even consider some of the suggestions in the VBM as to how to help a claim succeed.

Then again Vet reps get paid anyhow whether they help the vet or not.

No vet or widow should have to buy it-you are right- but their reps should buy it.It is the definitive word on VA claims.

Maybe Amazon has a lower price for used copies??? I dont know.

Actually Judy has a widow's CUE claim I posted here the other day that shows good example of what she would have to do to succeed in a better EED.and considerable info has been posted here already to help her.

The SF 95 matter- the OGC will fight this on the SOL (Statute of Limits) for sure.

There are many malpractice lawyers on the net these days and she will also need a strong IMO for the FTCA matter.

Edited October 24, 2009 by Berta

[john999]

I, too, won a claim based on information I got from VBM. I was looking at regs on DMII and it said that cataracts and artery disease are almost presumptive for DMII. I used this informatin to file a claim that ended up 60% CAD. It started with a CT scan on my leg because of a hematoma and showed some problems with arteries being blocked. The VBM helped me put two and two together. The VBM has a great section on protections for IU or 100% vets as to reductions. It helped me decide to file a CUE claim.

[broncovet]

The problem with the VBM is that it is expensive enough, that usually the ones that need the knowledge the most, can afford it the least. The VA knows this, and uses their staff of hundreds of lawyers against us. They know most Vets dont appeal, so they throw anything in the decisions knowing, even if it is overturned on appeal, its no skin off their nose. They get away with literally raping Veterans on these decisions...making them go through years and years of hardship and appeal after appeal, after appeal to get the benefits the Veteran deserves. I personally lost my home because of this Va policy.

[LarryJ]

I just received this email from my SO with AMVETS and must say I am shocked!

They won't even represent me if I choose to file an appeal??

I am posting the entire quote.

QUOTE: "

Dear Ms. B.......,

The Houston VA Regional Office is currently handling appeals received in 2007 so you can just imagine how long it would be before they get a chance to review your case. Because of this, AMVETS uses appeals as a last resort. I would advice you against filing an appeals What I would recommend is that we simply submit a request for an earlier effective date which could take 4-6 months rather than 24 months for an appeal.

I've looked through the file and can tell you that (IN MY OPINION) the chances of the VA granting the DIC effective back to the original claim are not very high. The reason why DIC was eventually granted was because you submitted new and material evidence that the VA had not received in the original claim, which was the independent medical opinion by Dr. Bash. Dr. Bash's opinion shone a different light on the claim and reasonable doubt was granted in your favor. The previous medical evidence associated with the claim did not. On the contrary, a BVA decision 3/4/94 concluded that "there was no known relationship between the presence of Hodgkin's lymphoma and the use of Adriamycin and the development of arteosclerotic disease. A VA examiner found no causal relationship between such treatment and the development of the fatal heart disease." Had Dr Bash's statement been submitted then the VA would have granted the claim based on reasonable doubt despite the difference of opinion. Unfortunately, that difference of opinion was not made until 10/31/07. Another attempt to file it under a negligence 1151 claim was denied 3/21/08 because there was no medical opinion to support the contention then either.

As a courtesy to you we can submit the request for an earlier effective date but AMVETS will be unable to support an appeal. Please let me know what you prefer to do so I can return the file to the VA.

Thanks,

AMVET rep signature"

That's okay, Judy. I'd drop any Service Officer who could not properly spell, or use, the word "advise".......seeing as how that is why they exist, to ADVISE!

[deltaj]

Office of General COunsel VA (023)

Department of Veterans Affairs

810 Vermont Avenue NW

Washington DC 20420

They need 3 copies of the SF 95.

Also they can be reached at 1-202-273-6380

You will proably get Debbie-=her PC is down for a while -I just spoke to them- She can advise you or refer you to an OGC attorney to find out if you need to send the SF 95 to the District Counsel VA that covers your VISN as well as to the OGC in DC.

Their MOS might have changed since I filed my original SF 95.I sent it to both OGC in DC and local Regional Counsel.

If you are in NY Western-VISN # 1- I spoke to District Counsel here yesterday and have contact number for them if you need it.

What is an SF 95?

[deltaj]

That's okay, Judy. I'd drop any Service Officer who could not properly spell, or use, the word "advise".......seeing as how that is why they exist, to ADVISE!

Judy, A search online under Ardriamycin and side effects links to drugs.com. That states that Adriamycin causes severes severe heart damage with prolonged use. The 20th edition of Davis's -drug guide lists quite a few adverse reactions and side effects of Adriamycin including, but not limited to, cardiomyopathy, anemia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, phlebitis at IV site, and tissue necrosis. There are a lot of websites listing side effects on this drug which are very serious. Review your last husband's medical records carefully for those side effects. By any chance was an autopsy done on your husband? Do you have any evidence that your husband had an enlarged heart? How long did he use Adriamycin and was it used for his service-connected disability? I think you should read 38 CFR 3.154, although I'm not certain this regulation will be useful to you.

Edited October 25, 2009 by deltaj