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

  • hohomepage-banner-2024-2.png

  • 27-year-anniversary-leaderboard.png

    advice-disclaimer.jpg

  • donate-be-a-hero.png

  • 0

Ao Rules - Disagree On Posted Comment For Ihd

Rate this question


JRW

Question

There was a comment posted today, from someone on the proposed new regulations for IHD today. To come to the point, there are two things I disagree with this person on. They are:

1. Vietnam vets should be sorted out to determine those with the likelihood of more exposure than other Vietnam vets and those rated higher than other Vietnam vets. (I thought a C&P exam would do this)

2. More tests should be done.

I don't agree his methodology in the manner of sorting out Vietnam vets to try to determine who was more exposed than others. Also, we don't need anymore tests. Too many vets have died already just for us survivors to get to this point.

Below is an excerpt from this person. Like I said, I totally disagree here on this one.

"I served as an Infantryman, squad leader, in the US Army; 4th ID; 2/8th Inf.; Republic of Vietnam 1969-1970. I am a Registered Nurse. I hold a B.S. in Biochemistry. I was a claims examiner-processor in the Fen-Phen settlement case for over a year.

Given the aforementioned qualifications as a basis for my recommendations, I suggest that:1. The process for qualifying and processing claims with regard to cardio-pulmonary disease in the Fen-Phen case be studied so as to more objectively, efficiently, and justly process claims with regard to Agent Orange and Ischemic Heart Disease. 2. Those more likely to have been exposed on a daily basis to Agent Orange in Vietnam, example Infantryman, should receive both a greater presumption of Ischemic Heart Disease related to the same, a greater presumption of acute and long term adverse affects related to the same, and; as a result, a greater disability rating. 3. The Biochemical and Bio-mechanical adverse affects on cardiac tissues may vary based upon other unique stressors placed upon those exposed to the same while in Vietnam. That is, those more likely to be exposed to a variety of chemical, environmental, physical, and emotional stressors (infantryman for example) and more likely to demonstrate signs and symptoms of ACS acute coronary syndrome (unstable angina, myocardial infarction related to the same than those while in Vietnam, were not so exposed. 4. There may need to be studies demonstrating and elucidating the unique adverse biophysical, and biochemical on the heart by Agent Orange, a person, such as more appropriate diagnosis and treatment of the same can be instituted."

Below is the website where you can read up on the comments.

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=VA-2010-VBA-0005

I am also not the least bit impressed with this person's "aforementioned qualifications". Now if he worked for the Institute of Medicine on the VA IHD study, I might think differently. But, this is a free country, I guess. Your thoughts???????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 7
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Days

Top Posters For This Question

Recommended Posts

I am with you on this-

AO was dumped on my husband in Ashau Valley (USMC) as they dumped it on the jungle but a good friend of ours was Army attache in Air Conditioned office in Saigon during the war.

They both had presumptives and they as well as ALL exposed vets should get AO comp no matter who was exposed more than others.

Both were in the original AO settlement fund.

This is all we need- this comment suggests that if you had 5 stressors from Nam -that requires more comp then one stressor-ludicrous

I am not impressed with this comment either.

The Fen Phen settlement has nothing to do with AO.

Mine will be posted there soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His argument is lost on the assumption of exposure. Each individual is different and will be affected differently. Without testing done at the time there is no way to tell whether a pesticides applicator on Guam, or a Bluewater vet, the men that handled these toxics in Okinawa, or the K9 corps in Thailand weren't exposed to more than some in country.

I have to agree with him that many infantryman were more likely exposed and to higher amounts, but that is because of the base camps mostly and military procedures. Their drinking water and the use of pesticides comes to mind. And each individual is different.

The EPA determined a long time ago there is no safe level for dioxin. And many of the substances military personnel were ingesting are synergistic or dioxin forming substances. How would you determine?

With AO, the laws were settled on the herbs, but everyone knew it was more than just that. And ultimately they narrowed it down to blaming TCDD for everyones ills.

This persons assumptions show what it's like when you don't have all the info or taylor your opinion to meet your agenda. His opinion is pretty myopic.

There was a comment posted today, from someone on the proposed new regulations for IHD today. To come to the point, there are two things I disagree with this person on. They are:

1. Vietnam vets should be sorted out to determine those with the likelihood of more exposure than other Vietnam vets and those rated higher than other Vietnam vets. (I thought a C&P exam would do this)

2. More tests should be done.

I don't agree his methodology in the manner of sorting out Vietnam vets to try to determine who was more exposed than others. Also, we don't need anymore tests. Too many vets have died already just for us survivors to get to this point.

Below is an excerpt from this person. Like I said, I totally disagree here on this one.

"I served as an Infantryman, squad leader, in the US Army; 4th ID; 2/8th Inf.; Republic of Vietnam 1969-1970. I am a Registered Nurse. I hold a B.S. in Biochemistry. I was a claims examiner-processor in the Fen-Phen settlement case for over a year.

Given the aforementioned qualifications as a basis for my recommendations, I suggest that:1. The process for qualifying and processing claims with regard to cardio-pulmonary disease in the Fen-Phen case be studied so as to more objectively, efficiently, and justly process claims with regard to Agent Orange and Ischemic Heart Disease. 2. Those more likely to have been exposed on a daily basis to Agent Orange in Vietnam, example Infantryman, should receive both a greater presumption of Ischemic Heart Disease related to the same, a greater presumption of acute and long term adverse affects related to the same, and; as a result, a greater disability rating. 3. The Biochemical and Bio-mechanical adverse affects on cardiac tissues may vary based upon other unique stressors placed upon those exposed to the same while in Vietnam. That is, those more likely to be exposed to a variety of chemical, environmental, physical, and emotional stressors (infantryman for example) and more likely to demonstrate signs and symptoms of ACS acute coronary syndrome (unstable angina, myocardial infarction related to the same than those while in Vietnam, were not so exposed. 4. There may need to be studies demonstrating and elucidating the unique adverse biophysical, and biochemical on the heart by Agent Orange, a person, such as more appropriate diagnosis and treatment of the same can be instituted."

Below is the website where you can read up on the comments.

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=VA-2010-VBA-0005

I am also not the least bit impressed with this person's "aforementioned qualifications". Now if he worked for the Institute of Medicine on the VA IHD study, I might think differently. But, this is a free country, I guess. Your thoughts???????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am with you on this-

AO was dumped on my husband in Ashau Valley (USMC) as they dumped it on the jungle but a good friend of ours was Army attache in Air Conditioned office in Saigon during the war.

They both had presumptives and they as well as ALL exposed vets should get AO comp no matter who was exposed more than others.

Both were in the original AO settlement fund.

This is all we need- this comment suggests that if you had 5 stressors from Nam -that requires more comp then one stressor-ludicrous

I am not impressed with this comment either.

The Fen Phen settlement has nothing to do with AO.

Mine will be posted there soon.

I spent a good amount of my fifteen months incountry in the parrots beak area as an air traffic controller. Not an 11Boo, that was my secondary MOS, but in the same jungle, the same water and the same enemies and as much or more time exposed than anyone else .

The methodology of the Phenfen settlement was based on a select population with specific ailments and a direct and timely correlation. AO is the head of a pin and we vets are all the angels dancing on it. It is unwise to add some sort of formula that can only be subjective.

Just as we all got combat pay in like amounts we sure all deserve equal presumption.

Hoa Binh.

DT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent topic, JRW.

I agree with you. I'm pretty tired right now so I may goof this up...but I actually got angry when I read that post. So...I was a FO, spent huge amount of time in the field and I preferred rice over of rations. Big Whoop!!

Thing is, who has the right to say one person deserves more than the other? We didn't keep diaries of what we ate/drank and where we went each day, or what we touched or what was sprayed on us and I'm sure that all of us went to/thru places that aren't documented in our files.

Fact is...we were all exposed. Whether it was me, out in the field, or my brother sitting behind a desk most of the time!

I've read so many tests/studies/abstract/scientific data that I'm truly sick of it. We've been tested, prodded and denied for years on end. The time has come to treat all AO vets properly! JMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Chr49,

Truth be known, as I was writing my response to this "educated" posted comment on the IHD regs., my blood pressure went up several points. But, I wanted to remain civil. The person that wrote his comment, in my opinion, really disapointed me and I'm sure our fellow Vietnam vets. That's sad.

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