diabetes Unusual Claim

[Berta]

In part:

"In connection with his current appeal, the veteran essentially contends that the error in this case relates to the misdiagnosis of his diabetes insipidus by Navy physicians during service. Since a claim of CUE relates to assertions of error contained within VA determinations, the Board will assume that the veteran further contends that this misdiagnosis in turn caused error in one of the early rating actions that addressed the veteran's claims for entitlement to service connection shortly after his separation from service. He requests that service connection for diabetes insipidus be granted effective from the date of his discharge from service." "In analyzing whether a rating decision is fatally flawed, it is important to keep in mind the meaning of CUE. The applicable regulation provides that previous determinations which were final and binding will be accepted as correct in the absence of clear and unmistakable error. Where evidence establishes such error, the prior decision will be reversed or amended. 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a) Accordingly, since the RO has more recently determined that such symptoms have been shown to have been manifested since service and warranted service connection for diabetes insipidus, the Board concludes that the veteran is entitled to an earlier effective date of November 9, 1979 for the grant of service connection for diabetes insipidus. A reopened claim for service connection for diabetes insipidus was received on December 15, 1998, and later granted by a rating decision in November 2001. An earlier claim for service connection for disability associated with abnormal water consumption in 1946 and loss of sleep, received on November 9, 1979, was not adjudicated by the RO and was therefore in open status at the time of the RO's rating decision of November 2001. " ORDER Entitlement to an effective date of November 9, 1979 for service connection for diabetes insipidus is granted. http://www4.va.gov/vetapp05/files3/0514860.txt

Parts are out of context-basically the vet lost the CUE but

"veteran further contends that this

misdiagnosis in turn caused error in one of the early rating

actions that addressed the veteran's claims for entitlement

to service connection shortly after his separation from

service."

[Hoppy]

I wonder if diabetes insipidus is on a list of chronic diseases or the medical literature establishes it as an incurable disease. Possibly they are telling the RO they need to review the entire history and do a statged rating. I would not want to give the impression that someone could get a retro-active grant based on current levels of disability.

I know that the senior members of hadit are aware that the the VA will consider chronicity and staged ratings. However, over the years some veterans that have shown up on hadit have gotten the false impression that they were going to be instant millionaires because they had a back problem 30 years ago in the military and today they cannot work because of their back problem.

Edited June 3, 2010 by Hoppy

[Testvet]

I know that the senior members of hadit are aware that the the VA will consider chronicity and staged ratings. However, over the years some veterans that have shown up on hadit have gotten the false impression that they were going to be instant millionaires because they had a back problem 30 years ago in the military and today they cannot work because of their back problem.

Hoppy I agree we have seen more than a few that think for some reason or other that the VA should pay them back to 1952 or 1967 or even 1978 etc they get the diea that since the incident happened to them back then that the VA chould sompensate them back to that date regardless of the fact that they spent the last 30-50 years working and now that they are retired and bored they have time to fight with the VA over perceived slights that in some cases never happened some veterans never even filed claims when they left the military or if they did file the claim some moved before the claims were adjudicated and they basically abandoned the claims and now they want what they are "due" and many of them will not listen to reason they feel like they have been "cheated" out of decades of 100% compensation and they want it NOW yet they never bothered to "check" on the status of the claim since 1965 or they get the idea that because the PTSD stressor incident occurred in 1965 or 1970 that they are owed back pay to the date of their discharge even though for the most part many of them like myself even denied they had a "problem" myself I didn't file a VA claim until Dec 2002 and I was educated quickly on effective dates, inferred claims finding evidence from the government that the VARO was not going out of their way to find. Etc but no matter what you show to some of these veterans they are bound and determined to get paid back to the date of the stressor incident which we all know is never going to happen.

I was 45 when I was physically forced to quit working and then had to face my demons I was in the VA system for almost a year before I even asked my PC doc for a referral to mental health and it took them 4 months to make the PTSD diagnosis and the VARO fight was not a "gimmee" I found the general court martials and hospital records that proved my stressor and none of the VSOs from any of the service organizations were any help on the CAD and hypertension as secondary to my PTSD all of them told me I would never win it and they all TOLD me to drop it, me I was to stubborn and I didn't, I was lucky and got a lawyer that took the case "pro bono" from NOVA veterans group and she did an excellent job on showing the nexus and presenting the case so she did the "impossible" on some of the decades old cases sometimes the VA did make mistakes and left cases "open" which leaves the doors open to some veterans being able to collect 30-60 years worth of back pay but they are usually for cases that have smaller percentage awards I have never seen a 100% award that goes back decades but even a 10% award going back to 1945 can add up to almost a 100,000 so there are some very rare cases that turn out to be large lump sums but they are few and far between

I try to stiffle the veterans that seem to be determined thatthe VA OWES them 100% for the past 40 years because they aren't going to get it, the case was not pursued and in some cases was never filed when the veteran left the service so why do they think out of the blue 40 years later the VA is just going to hand them 400,000 dollars because they have PTSD that was never diagnosed and they worked and retired but now they are 100% disabled because of PTSD symptoms?

Do retired veterans have claims for PTSD yes if they are having the symptoms and at what percentage the VARO awards them depends largely on the symptoms and how it is affecting their life but I think we have all seen some vets that spent 40 years at the same job married to the same high school sweetheart and won numerous awards for community involvement and retire then immediately file claims with the VA because their friends from the local watering hole told them how to do it to pad their retirement incomes, these veterans are not doing anyone any favors and are hurting the system overall and then make the public question all PTSD veterans.

Enough of my soap box but I think we have all seen valid claims and BS claims and the BS claims hurt us all

[Hoppy]

Testvet,

Several years ago a guy showed up on hadit who had injured his back while on active duty. Many years later he was on SSD. I got a Personal message from him telling me how ecstatic he was to have found hadit. He had already done the math back to when he was in the service and figured that the VA owed him $400,000,00. He told how happy this had made him and his wife because they were really having financial problems trying to raise two kids on SSD only.

I told him to slow down and keep reading before he went around and started telling everybody he knew that he was going to get a windfall from the VA. He got rather defensive and started citing general references to VA law about how favorable the VA should be. I started sending him BVA cases for back conditions that were denied to read. I stopped hearing from him soon thereafter.

This is why I address the issues that need to be considered when I hear a case going back many years.

[Commander Bob]

...I told him to slow down and keep reading before he went around and started telling everybody he knew that he was going to get a windfall from the VA. He got rather defensive and started citing general references to VA law about how favorable the VA should be. I started sending him BVA cases for back conditions that were denied to read. I stopped hearing from him soon thereafter....

Thank you for your service to the many veterans you have helped, Hoppy.

I am also reminded, "No good deed goes unpunished"...

Edited June 5, 2010 by Commander Bob

[Mr cue]

well i have a case that goes back to 93 i did a cue claim got to bva and was told there can not be a cue of a open claim. they dissmised the cue and open my claim back to 93 and gave me a infromal iu claim 93 because i told the comp doc i was not working. now here were it gets funny i was granted 60% and iu 2001. the bva has remaned my iu cases to amc for doc opion. if i could have work in 93 i have not work since 93. and granted me 10% 93-2001 for the same issue. this a cue by bva. infromal claim was granted 2001 so by law and igrams vs nichloson and by this case and many others. and would you believe i can not get the bva or amc to look at this. i am just go threw motion.

[john999]

I got a CUE for 100% going back to 1971. The facts are there. I believe the VA will find some way out. I can't believe they will grant it even though my lawyer says they must. I have to buy a big dinner to the shrink who wrote the original report saying I was 100% back in 1971 if I win. I still see him. He said he would write a statement that he wrote that report in 1971 and still stands by it 39 years later. I don't think that will help, but there it is. I am waiting almost five months since my BVA hearing.