Jump to content

Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts 
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules 

  • tbirds-va-claims-struggle (1).png

  • Donate Now and Keep Us Helping You

     

Can Someone Explain Medical Term

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I just received my husband medical records where he had a Quadruple bypass in 1990.

I don't understand this part: Old and occluded right coronary artery, marked stenosis proximally in the LAD vessel. Inspection of the heart showed old inferior right ventricular scarring.

Thanks

Kathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Kathy,

LAD means the Lower Arterial Descending artery which is one of the main arteries feeding the heart muscle. running approximately north to south. Stenosis means blockage and in this case the terminogy suggests significant blockage within this artery. Old and occluded also refer to a not so good condition of the artery Proximately means close to or in the neighborhood of

The scarring of the left ventricle(one of the four main chambers of the heart) means there was some damage done to that chamber at some point and the scarring is the hearts attempt to repair that damage.

If this report is from current tests he really needs additional attention to that LAD to determine the extent of the "stenosis" or blockage since this is a very important artery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My husband received a C&P reevaluation for his back, hip and knee 9 months after discharge in 1971. On the radiographic report during the C&P the findings were:

2 M CHESTOGRAM, pa and lateral views 6/30/71, shows no consolidative lesion. Heart shadow appears abnormal in that the aortic knob is hypoplastic, (small) and there is prominence of the main pulmonary artery ( convex border instead of concave) and there is suggestion of some increased roundness of the left ventricle without any evidence of cardiac enlargement. One should rule out possibilities: 1. Aortic valvular disease? 2. Bronchial asthma? Lung fields show no hyperaeration or any depressed diaphragm and peribronchial markings are within normal limits. He was not told about these findings and did not know he had heart problems until his heart attack in 1990.

They also did an EKG during the Exam but I can't find where they addressed the results of the test.

On the Report of medical examination under cardiovascular the results were: Normal to P&A

I thought that any medical problems found within a year of discharge it should be service connected.

Would there be any chance of getting his heart service connected by using the results of the C&P in 1971 and his report from his Quadruple bypass in 1990.

1990 Quadruple bypass report: Old and occluded right coronary artery, marked stenosis proximally in the Lad Vessel. Inspection of the heart showed old inferior right ventricular scarring.

Thanks

Kathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My husband received a C&P reevaluation for his back, hip and knee 9 months after discharge in 1971. On the radiographic report during the C&P the findings were:

2 M CHESTOGRAM, pa and lateral views 6/30/71, shows no consolidative lesion. Heart shadow appears abnormal in that the aortic knob is hypoplastic, (small) and there is prominence of the main pulmonary artery ( convex border instead of concave) and there is suggestion of some increased roundness of the left ventricle without any evidence of cardiac enlargement. One should rule out possibilities: 1. Aortic valvular disease? 2. Bronchial asthma? Lung fields show no hyperaeration or any depressed diaphragm and peribronchial markings are within normal limits. He was not told about these findings and did not know he had heart problems until his heart attack in 1990.

They also did an EKG during the Exam but I can't find where they addressed the results of the test.

On the Report of medical examination under cardiovascular the results were: Normal to P&A

I thought that any medical problems found within a year of discharge it should be service connected.

Would there be any chance of getting his heart service connected by using the results of the C&P in 1971 and his report from his Quadruple bypass in 1990.

1990 Quadruple bypass report: Old and occluded right coronary artery, marked stenosis proximally in the Lad Vessel. Inspection of the heart showed old inferior right ventricular scarring.

Thanks

Kathy

Kathy

The VA 's claims process is unpredictable, as you have undoubtedly read here, it can follow rules ,not follow rules or just plain make up rules. One rater can see things one way as opposed to another,so......when in doubt it doesnt hurt to give it a try!!!!!!

Given what you have stated tho and just in my humble opinion, you would need the cooperation of at least a cardiologist to review all husbands records, do some updated testing and be willing to draw a "nexus" between the original issues as set out in 1971, the heart attack in 1990 and his present heart conditions TOUGH , Very Tough!

Even then you would face two (at least) huge issues

1. Are you claiming the service negligent in failing to advise you all of the problems noted in the 1971 physical? and not taking medical action for them? Can you prove you were not notified of these problems ( ie did he sign off on the results somewhere?)

2. The passage of time between 1971 -1990 and the present time. (ie is there a record of continuing private or VA care for these conditions thru both of these periods of time?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Tell a friend

    Love HadIt.com’s VA Disability Community Vets helping Vets since 1997? Tell a friend!
  • Recent Achievements

    • LEArmy93P earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • LtDave earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • HillTopVet earned a badge
      First Post
    • kidva went up a rank
      Contributor
    • AFguy1999 went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Our picks

    • These decisions have made a big impact on how VA disability claims are handled, giving veterans more chances to get benefits and clearing up important issues.

      Service Connection

      Frost v. Shulkin (2017)
      This case established that for secondary service connection claims, the primary service-connected disability does not need to be service-connected or diagnosed at the time the secondary condition is incurred 1. This allows veterans to potentially receive secondary service connection for conditions that developed before their primary condition was officially service-connected. 

      Saunders v. Wilkie (2018)
      The Federal Circuit ruled that pain alone, without an accompanying diagnosed condition, can constitute a disability for VA compensation purposes if it results in functional impairment 1. This overturned previous precedent that required an underlying pathology for pain to be considered a disability.

      Effective Dates

      Martinez v. McDonough (2023)
      This case dealt with the denial of an earlier effective date for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) 2. It addressed issues around the validity of appeal withdrawals and the consideration of cognitive impairment in such decisions.

      Rating Issues

      Continue Reading on HadIt.com
      • 1 review
    • I met with a VSO today at my VA Hospital who was very knowledgeable and very helpful.  We decided I should submit a few new claims which we did.  He told me that he didn't need copies of my military records that showed my sick call notations related to any of the claims.  He said that the VA now has entire military medical record on file and would find the record(s) in their own file.  It seemed odd to me as my service dates back to  1981 and spans 34 years through my retirement in 2015.  It sure seemed to make more sense for me to give him copies of my military medical record pages that document the injuries as I'd already had them with me.  He didn't want my copies.  Anyone have any information on this.  Much thanks in advance.  
      • 4 replies
    • Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
      Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection. See COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL

      This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:

      Current Diagnosis.   (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)

      In-Service Event or Aggravation.
      Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”
      • 0 reviews
    • Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability rating 
    • VA has gotten away with (mis) interpreting their  ambigious, , vague regulations, then enforcing them willy nilly never in Veterans favor.  

      They justify all this to congress by calling themselves a "pro claimant Veteran friendly organization" who grants the benefit of the doubt to Veterans.  

      This is not true, 

      Proof:  

          About 80-90 percent of Veterans are initially denied by VA, pushing us into a massive backlog of appeals, or worse, sending impoverished Veterans "to the homeless streets" because  when they cant work, they can not keep their home.  I was one of those Veterans who they denied for a bogus reason:  "Its been too long since military service".  This is bogus because its not one of the criteria for service connection, but simply made up by VA.  And, I was a homeless Vet, albeit a short time,  mostly due to the kindness of strangers and friends. 

          Hadit would not be necessary if, indeed, VA gave Veterans the benefit of the doubt, and processed our claims efficiently and paid us promptly.  The VA is broken. 

          A huge percentage (nearly 100 percent) of Veterans who do get 100 percent, do so only after lengthy appeals.  I have answered questions for thousands of Veterans, and can only name ONE person who got their benefits correct on the first Regional Office decision.  All of the rest of us pretty much had lengthy frustrating appeals, mostly having to appeal multiple multiple times like I did. 

          I wish I know how VA gets away with lying to congress about how "VA is a claimant friendly system, where the Veteran is given the benefit of the doubt".   Then how come so many Veterans are homeless, and how come 22 Veterans take their life each day?  Va likes to blame the Veterans, not their system.   
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use