Philpott Article On New Ao

[Berta]

John Miterko of the VVA reflects here the possibility that -as I feared-that VA could provide a limiting criteria for IHD claims.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,208380,00.html

Would that be possible? Can IHD be solely attributed to cigarette smoking or to obesity and then denied even if the vet was exposed to AO?

Does this mean vets will surely need to incur the expense of IMOs if the VA tries to deny AO IHD solely on these bases?

I heard you guys all had smokes in your C rats – as Gov issue in Vietnam.SO much for that etiology.

The FR still doesnt have the regs yet.

BTW-I was just sent email pdf from Gen Counsel of a letter I didn't get in mail yet from the OGC. It discusses how they contacted the RO regarding my AO claim and FTCA matter.On Dec 24^th.

Quite of bit of action has been taken since but I dont know exactly what as someone told me the wrong info from their PC screen.

When I asked the VARO to CUE their 2 inaccurate award letters- I was right-

I was also right in asking them to refund my FTCA offset money.

They ignored my letters on that but sure didnt ignore what they got from the OGC in DC.OGC agreed with my complaint.The RO is re-doing the award letters and figuring out the cash.

Not only might these proposed IHD regs be difficult for some AO vets to obtain award on but my situation goes to show how the ROs will still attempt to defy the Nehmer Court order.And string out these AO retro payments-when they have an established criteria in place for the proper handling of these retro payments.

Between the fact that some RO raters dont even comprehend Nehmer-even when the claimant does what I did -- I sent the court order to them myself-

and with this potential limit to some AO IHD claims- IHD will cost VA plenty but they might try to hold back plenty. The VVA guy mentioned in this article is just only personally opining on how the VA could potentially deny some AO IHD claims. This is not a fact in granite. But he raised a good issue-

because it all boils down to money-and VA will save every penny of AO comp they possibly can.

__,_._,___

Edited December 31, 2009 by Berta

[N4XV]

John Miterko of the VVA reflects here the possibility that -as I feared-that VA could provide a limiting criteria for IHD claims.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,208380,00.html

Would that be possible? Can IHD be solely attributed to cigarette smoking or to obesity and then denied even if the vet was exposed to AO?

Does this mean vets will surely need to incur the expense of IMOs if the VA tries to deny AO IHD solely on these bases?

I heard you guys all had smokes in your C rats – as Gov issue in Vietnam.SO much for that etiology.

The FR still doesnt have the regs yet.

BTW-I was just sent email pdf from Gen Counsel of a letter I didn't get in mail yet from the OGC. It discusses how they contacted the RO regarding my AO claim and FTCA matter.On Dec 24^th.

Quite of bit of action has been taken since but I dont know exactly what as someone told me the wrong info from their PC screen.

When I asked the VARO to CUE their 2 inaccurate award letters- I was right-

I was also right in asking them to refund my FTCA offset money.

They ignored my letters on that but sure didnt ignore what they got from the OGC in DC.OGC agreed with my complaint.The RO is re-doing the award letters and figuring out the cash.

Not only might these proposed IHD regs be difficult for some AO vets to obtain award on but my situation goes to show how the ROs will still attempt to defy the Nehmer Court order.And string out these AO retro payments-when they have an established criteria in place for the proper handling of these retro payments.

Between the fact that some RO raters dont even comprehend Nehmer-even when the claimant does what I did -- I sent the court order to them myself-

and with this potential limit to some AO IHD claims- IHD will cost VA plenty but they might try to hold back plenty. The VVA guy mentioned in this article is just only personally opining on how the VA could potentially deny some AO IHD claims. This is not a fact in granite. But he raised a good issue-

because it all boils down to money-and VA will save every penny of AO comp they possibly can.

__,_._,___

[N4XV]

Would that be possible? Can IHD be solely attributed to cigarette smoking or to obesity and then denied even if the vet was exposed to AO?

I've heard of nam vets getting granted claims for lung cancer due to AO exposure and they were 3 and 4 pack a day smokers. If a nam vet is AO presumed and is Dx'd with IHD that is all the VA should be looking at.     N4XV

I heard you guys all had smokes in your C rats – as Gov issue in Vietnam.SO much for that etiology.

I started smoking while in the nam mainly because of the free smokes and and being bored when off duty. Every "C" rat had a minnie pack of 4 or 5 smokes depending on the brand LRPS came with a carton of smokes. It would be cool if one could claim smoking due service in nam.

T

[john999]

I think the word "presumptive" means what it says. The VBA may try and wriggle out of SC'ing some cases of heart disease for RVN vets, but they will have to show why it is not presumptive for AO in my opinion. If the VA can challange IHD then they can challange all the other AO presumptive disorders. The VA would be inventing a new class of persumptive vets who only get part of the presumption.

[murph]

John Miterko of the VVA reflects here the possibility that -as I feared-that VA could provide a limiting criteria for IHD claims.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,208380,00.html

Would that be possible? Can IHD be solely attributed to cigarette smoking or to obesity and then denied even if the vet was exposed to AO?

Does this mean vets will surely need to incur the expense of IMOs if the VA tries to deny AO IHD solely on these bases?

I heard you guys all had smokes in your C rats – as Gov issue in Vietnam.SO much for that etiology.

The FR still doesnt have the regs yet.

BTW-I was just sent email pdf from Gen Counsel of a letter I didn't get in mail yet from the OGC. It discusses how they contacted the RO regarding my AO claim and FTCA matter.On Dec 24^th.

Quite of bit of action has been taken since but I dont know exactly what as someone told me the wrong info from their PC screen.

When I asked the VARO to CUE their 2 inaccurate award letters- I was right-

I was also right in asking them to refund my FTCA offset money.

They ignored my letters on that but sure didnt ignore what they got from the OGC in DC.OGC agreed with my complaint.The RO is re-doing the award letters and figuring out the cash.

Not only might these proposed IHD regs be difficult for some AO vets to obtain award on but my situation goes to show how the ROs will still attempt to defy the Nehmer Court order.And string out these AO retro payments-when they have an established criteria in place for the proper handling of these retro payments.

Between the fact that some RO raters dont even comprehend Nehmer-even when the claimant does what I did -- I sent the court order to them myself-

and with this potential limit to some AO IHD claims- IHD will cost VA plenty but they might try to hold back plenty. The VVA guy mentioned in this article is just only personally opining on how the VA could potentially deny some AO IHD claims. This is not a fact in granite. But he raised a good issue-

because it all boils down to money-and VA will save every penny of AO comp they possibly can.

__,_._,___

Mr Miterko of the vva did more than reflect,he stated it would be common sense in his opinion to consider smoking and obesity for IHD claims.If its common sense the same could be said for other presumed for ao,DM11 for example.Shall we include fatty foods,lifestyles etc.I hope common sense will prevail for my IHD claim as i quit smoking 30 years ago and i"m only a little chunky. :P

[Chuck75]

Ischemic heart disease-- Reduced blood flow to the heart that has resulted in damage to the heart.

Factors, etc.

A.O. (Vietnam) Presumptive Even the early "Ranch Hand" study showed that heart disease had a higher association (by ~2%) than Diabetes II. It's about bloody time that somebody got around to noticing this.

For those in the "Blue Water Navy" -- Da Nang Harbor has, as of 2 Nov 09, been given the statues of "inland waterway" by the BVA in a case granting presumptive SC for DMII to a sailor that was stationed on the USS Oklahoma City when the ship was in the harbor at Da Nang. If there is any justice and consistency, Cam Ranh Bay should be given the same status, due to land on three sides, etc.

The real problem is that there are various medical problems that can easily lead to ischemic heart disease.

We can bet that the VA will likely try to take as many "outs" as it can, based upon past denials of the conditions that directly cause ischemic heart disease. It may get to the point that the VA tries to deny presumptive status when any condition that might lead to ischemic heard disease is present, as being the "likely" cause rather that A.O. exposure.

[broncovet]

I agree with Berta. I think it was Jim Strickland or Larry Scott who commented on presumption for IHD, suggesting this was huge. There is no doubt in my mind that the VA will figure out some method to limit presumption for IHD, or figure out how to deny them all entirely...or at least tie the whole thing up in court for 10 years or more. Those people who have IHD often are pretty sick so not very many of them will still be around to collect their benefits 10 years down the road. And, of course, we know that their family wont get a dime either.

They have been playing the same game with Blue Water Navy and lots of other things. Basically, they limit it to the very healthiest people, because the others all die while waiting on the VA to process the benefit application, since the Va has no trouble at all delaying a claim 10 years. Then, if you survive the 10 years, the Va denies you on the basis that if you were that sick, you would have already died. Its a political manipulation so that some politician can boast.."I got blue water Navy benefits for Veterans..there..now I want Veterans to vote for me."....when in reality most/all of those claims are tied up in court, and few if any will live to see the money.

I see the same thing happening with IHD.