Medical Conditions In Va Medical Records Question

[dav_marine72]

Hi All,

I was in the Marines 91-95. I broke my 3rd right metatarsal in boot camp and had a stress fracture in my 3rd left metatarsal in Marine Combat Training right after boot camp. After that I sucked up the pain and discomforts in my feet because in the Marines that's what you do. Prior to entering boot camp I had no medical problems including no feet problems. I played baseball, football, etc. no problems. When I got out I went to Disabled American Veterans and filed for service connections for both feet, asthma, and right testicle pain. That was pretty much the extent of medical problems while in service.

Focusing on the feet only I was service connected for fractures of the 3rd metatarsal for both feet. I was awarded 10% for my right and 0% for my left. At the time life wasn't hell from a medical stand point and I didn't know VA law at all, so I didn't appeal or anything. I was seen multiple times in 1996 and 1997 at a VA medical center and a civilian podiatrist for both my feet. The VA tried hard orthodics and special shoes for me but nothing helped. I am currently on appeal for both feet from 2000 at the BVA. Current diagnosis is severe pes cavus, rigid feet, weak feet bilateral, and severe ankle equinus which basically means severe limitation of my ROM for both my ankles. The VA podiatrist also diagnosed me as having nerve entrapment at the top of both my feet. They are currently getting me new orthodics to try although he is skeptical they will work and utliatemly thinks I will need ankle braces.

Not to add confusion because I want to focus on the feet but I also have a back condition service connection from my feet and a bilateral lower extremity service connection from my back. I am prescribed a cane, back brace, and a rollator for my back because of weakness in my lower extremities and feet. So I had a hearing at the VARO in 2004 for a ton of issues including my feet before the appeal went to the BVA, U.S. Court and now back to the BVA on a joint remand. In the hearing I told the DRO that my problems in my feet were due to the Pes Cavus and ankle instability I have. She said well your only service connected for fractures of your 3rd metatarsal bilaterally so none of that can be considered. She and the DAV rep said I would need to get a nexus letter to try and tie in the conditions to my service connections. I agrued and said I had no problems with my feet prior to the military so as far as I was concerned the VA owned any issues with my feet. My wonderful DAV rep never bothered to check any of my medical records hence why I am not with DAV anymore.

I was diagnosed at a VA medical center podiatry consult with pes cavus and ankle equinus in June of 1996. My DAV rep should have picked this up because I was honorablly discharged on November 11, 1995. Hence June of 1996 was within the 1 year presumption period. So my question is after the BVA looks at this do I need to file for service connection and does this go back to 1996 or the date I file for service connection? I guess it would depend if they included the symptoms in my decision as far as the rating? Anyone have any thoughts? Thanks in advance.

[Pete53]

Pete not sure if your post was by mistake and meant for another.

Halos2 I have from 2000 - 2009 prior to be TDIU on appeal. 2000-2002 50% 2002-2007 70% 2008 80% 2009 100%

My first order of business is to obtain the ratings I deserve for my service connections. This will of course bring back pay hence the sanity behind it. I also have a good chance of getting 100% schedular in this time frame and would like to get it not only for back pay but so they can't hold TDIU over me. Make sense?

Sorry my post was meant for another thread.

Pete

[john999]

Very difficult to go from TDIU to 100% schedular. I am 70%, 60%, 10%,10%,10%,10%, and 10% and still only 90% by VA math. If you can't work it does not matter about IU or 100%.

[LarryJ]

John is absolutely correct.

That is WHY they have the TDIU.......because it is impossible, with VA mathematics, to ever piece together enough percentages to reach 100% schedular (almost).

Take the TDIU and accept it as a "100%" rating.

Yes, they can reduce you, IF you give them a reason to, BUT, they can reduce you if your rating is SCHEDULAR, also.

Just don't be a fooleo and go out and start turning in 1040's every year showing you made a bunch of money.

And, don't piss off your ex-wife...................trust me on this, okay.

[john999]

Larry

That's a good one. Don't piss off ex-wife. Many is the guy who has learned the meaning of "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned or divorced".

[vaf]

Larry's point is well taken. My husband's schedular rating was rounded up to 100%, but it was actually 94.5 something (rounded up to 95, rounded up to 100). That was basically a 100% schedular rating hanging by a thread, too close for comfort. This happened after he was turned down for TDIU, so go figure.

Considering the reality that any individual disability rating can be reduced prior to holding it at that level for 20 years, which of course impacts the overall rating, we filed for and finally won service connection for sleep apnea and cataracts after only two years. When asked what the purpose was for filing since he was already 100% P & T, my answer was "insurance."

I believe we actually got those two ratings, 50% and 30%, respectively, because they didn't increase his compensation at all. But for us, it increased the margin for error.

I'm one of those folks that believes a veteran should file for every single disability he or she has if the evidence exists to back it up, regardless of the current rating.

[sixthscents]

Umm.. I agree that vets should file simply because the "other 50% or 100%" rating rule for SMC, if they receive SMC.

Otherwise at some point it is... pointless. Of course I believe in filing for increases for worsening condition etc. But at some point it is again just pointless. I could file claims all day and still not affect anything with my overall benefits. I understand securing 100% or TDIU P&T, but once that has happened, unless it is to entitle a veteran to some benefit they haven't been awarded I just cant see it.