Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

VA Disability Claims Articles

Ask Your VA Claims Question | Current Forum Posts Search | Rules | View All Forums
VA Disability Articles | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users

  • homepage-banner-2024-2.png

  • donate-be-a-hero.png

  • 0

Nicotine Dependence

Rate this question


Josephine

Question

  • Answers 5
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Top Posters For This Question

5 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • HadIt.com Elder
Am I reading this correctly?

Service Connection for Nicotine Dependence

http://www4.va.gov/vetapp09/files4/0930736.txt

''in legal language the veteran "threaded a very narrow needle" he used the language needed to use nicotine as a cause to his CAD based on the fact it aggravated his SC COPD since it aggravated an already SC issue the Judge sided with the veteran that the RO should have granted SC as secondary now remember any other Judge at BVA would probably deny the same claim presented like this win some lose some this vet won a big one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a similar case. . .

http://www4.va.gov/vetapp07/files1/0700083.txt

The veteran's service-connected PTSD contributed to his fatal lung cancer in that it played a material causal role in his use of tobacco products after service. The veteran's use of tobacco products caused the disease that is directly linked to the veteran's demise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josephine-that case is quite a Find !!!!

This could possibly help any AO vet -if denied -who has IHD that VA says is due to smoking-to hopefully prevail on the IHD claim.

Smokes were gov issues in rations up to some point in the Mil-

I wonder what evidence the vet used to prove his nicotine dependence started in the Mil-

not all servicemen/women smoked the cigs that came with the C rats.

As noted, one of the exceptions to the bar against nicotine-

dependent claims filed after June 9, 1998 is that if the

evidence shows that an ischemic heart disease or other

cardiovascular disease is aggravated by the Veteran's use of

tobacco-related products during service, then service

connection can be warranted. The Board did not consider this

exception in the September 2008 decision but rather continued

to deny the claim based on the June 9, 1998 prohibition

against tobacco-related claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bufloguy-that is a great case too:

this part is unusual:

"The veteran died in May 2002. In the original death

certificate, the immediate cause of the veteran's death was

listed as lung cancer with other significant conditions

contributing to death noted as coronary artery disease and

stroke.

An amended certificate of death added PTSD as an additional

significant condition contributing to the veteran's death."

Here in NY the Coroner asked me all of my husband's disabilities and then said they never put PTSD on a death certificate although he considered it to be a very disabling condition.

My husband was only rated at 30% for PTSD at death but this was changed to 100% 3 years later.

I considered trying to have the Death Certificate changed to reflect the PTSD but never did- I found some BVA cases where the BVA had taken a very unfavorable view when some death certificates had been amended.

In one case the BVA had even stated that the death certificate was changed due to pressure from a widow put onto the ME and/or Coroner.

Yet I suggested this to a widow in another state and she had her husband's death certificate amended with no problem and this led to a DIC award.

In the long run whether a condition is listed as contributing to death or not on a death certificate,the death can sometimes still be directly service connected.

My recent award of direct SC death of my husband was based on an AO condition that was not listed on the death certificate at all and not diagnosed in his lifetime.

Obviously there was more evidence in this widow's case that supported the award.

While BVA cases dont stand up as evidence to support a separate claim from someone else-they contain a wealth of info as to the thinking pattern of the BVA as they consider all applicable law and regs along with all of the evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use