hypertension Ischemic Ao Vets

[Berta]

Bingo:

we might need this case. The BVA is not opining here as solely specific to the veteran. They have made a statement of medical fact.

“The next question under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309© is whether or not the appellant has ischemic heart disease. While the appellant has had a long history of problems with hypertension and hypertensive cardiovascular disease, more recent evidence shows that he also has coronary artery disease and arteriosclerotic heart disease. As noted above, coronary artery disease and arteriosclerotic heart disease are synonymous with ischemic heart disease. In other words, for VA purposes, there is current medical evidence showing that the appellant has a diagnosis of ischemic heart disease.” “Given the fulfillment of the two primary criteria (the presence of in-service edema and a post-service diagnosis of ischemic heart disease) in this case, the facts are sufficient to support a grant of service connection for ischemic heart disease as being the result of the appellant's POW experience under the presumptive provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.309©. ORDER Service connection for ischemic heart disease is granted. “ from: http://www4.va.gov/vetapp00/files2/0017299.txt THIS statement IS EXACTLY WHAT I PREDICT WE ARE UP AGAINST: “The RO denied the appellant's claim primarily on the strength of a negative opinion furnished by a fee basis physician in August 1997. However, the record clearly shows that the physician was not aware that for VA purposes arteriosclerotic heart disease and coronary artery disease are considered to be ischemic heart disease. See VBA Circular 21-97-1. The physician's opinion that there is no relationship between the appellant's ischemic heart disease, diagnosed as arteriosclerotic heart disease and coronary artery disease, and his localized edema as a POW is in opposition to the relationship established by legal presumption. Where, as in this case, there was localized edema during captivity and ischemic heart disease is subsequently identified, presumptive service connection for ischemic heart disease is warranted.”

from same case above and referenced to VBA circular 21-97-1 -which I need to find at the VA web site--------

A C & P doctor didnt know the relationship of the veteran CAD to his IHD evident by the POW's edema, beri beri and other captivity caused disabilities.

This is case of a POW

And shows how incompetent those C & P docs can be.

IHD is the presumptive for POWs and the doc knew it.

I read stuff life this and I just want to SCREAM when I see this stuff because this is either incompetence or deliberate way for VA to save money.Otr both.

Edited December 6, 2009 by Berta

[Berta]

Bingo # 2- AO vets with ISchemia claims might need this-it isd the VBA circular referred to in the BVA decision I just posted.

I wonder if VA will amend or change this.

AO_CArdio_Dec_2009_VBA.doc

[vmo]

Bingo # 2- AO vets with ISchemia claims might need this-it isd the VBA circular referred to in the BVA decision I just posted.

I wonder if VA will amend or change this.

Great informative post. Thanks!

[Van]

Bingo:

we might need this case. The BVA is not opining here as solely specific to the veteran. They have made a statement of medical fact.

“The next question under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309© is whether or not the appellant has ischemic heart disease. While the appellant has had a long history of problems with hypertension and hypertensive cardiovascular disease, more recent evidence shows that he also has coronary artery disease and arteriosclerotic heart disease. As noted above, coronary artery disease and arteriosclerotic heart disease are synonymous with ischemic heart disease. In other words, for VA purposes, there is current medical evidence showing that the appellant has a diagnosis of ischemic heart disease.” “Given the fulfillment of the two primary criteria (the presence of in-service edema and a post-service diagnosis of ischemic heart disease) in this case, the facts are sufficient to support a grant of service connection for ischemic heart disease as being the result of the appellant's POW experience under the presumptive provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.309©. ORDER Service connection for ischemic heart disease is granted. “ from: http://www4.va.gov/vetapp00/files2/0017299.txt THIS statement IS EXACTLY WHAT I PREDICT WE ARE UP AGAINST: “The RO denied the appellant's claim primarily on the strength of a negative opinion furnished by a fee basis physician in August 1997. However, the record clearly shows that the physician was not aware that for VA purposes arteriosclerotic heart disease and coronary artery disease are considered to be ischemic heart disease. See VBA Circular 21-97-1. The physician's opinion that there is no relationship between the appellant's ischemic heart disease, diagnosed as arteriosclerotic heart disease and coronary artery disease, and his localized edema as a POW is in opposition to the relationship established by legal presumption. Where, as in this case, there was localized edema during captivity and ischemic heart disease is subsequently identified, presumptive service connection for ischemic heart disease is warranted.”

from same case above and referenced to VBA circular 21-97-1 -which I need to find at the VA web site--------

A C & P doctor didnt know the relationship of the veteran CAD to his IHD evident by the POW's edema, beri beri and other captivity caused disabilities.

This is case of a POW

And shows how incompetent those C & P docs can be.

IHD is the presumptive for POWs and the doc knew it.

I read stuff life this and I just want to SCREAM when I see this stuff because this is either incompetence or deliberate way for VA to save money.Otr both.

This is pretty simple Berta. I look at it this way. You remember those experiments with monkeys and rats. They put these animals in cages with treats in their view and if they push the right button they get the treat. I've found this to be true throughout DVA. Consultants, general counsel, BVA judges, ratings people, adjudicators, VARO heads, it doesn't seem to matter.

The same principle is true at the NIH, NAS,IOM and others. It's about the payoff.

It's willful ignorance at it's worse and it's right up there with the dodge studies. Dodge studies are those that are meant to direct the science away from the truth. This slows the process and eats up those funds that are meant for viable studies or for a false truth,"see the study shows dioxin isn't harmful". "See the study shows radiation isn't harmful". "Our doctor has determined your illness isn't related to service". The only way to get the treat is to come up with the right answer. They're all trained monkey's and rat's and a few others I might add.