Got The White Envelope Today -Denied

[retiredat44]

Got the white envelope today -DENIED

will post more later..

[Berta]

Carlie- the prime disability of Necrotizing pancreatitis has never been claimed.

I studied as much as I could find years ago on this disability. It is not the same as a generic claim for chronic pancreatitis.

Not the same thing at all.It can be fatal as Retiredat44 has told us.

In the partial SOC Retriredat44 posted here years at hadit it stated:

“The VA examination shows a diagnosis of status post necrotizing pancreatitis secondary

to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with residual chronic pancreatitis. “

----------------------------------------------------------

This excerpt from a lawyer's web site says:

“Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) remains the most common cause of iatrogenic pancreatitis [1]. Studies have shown post-ERCP complications were responsible for greater than 65 percent of malpractice claims [2, 3]. “

http://americanmedic...ctice-case.html

Th term “Iatrogenic”means caused by a doctor or medical procedure.

I have read retired's IMO, the parts that were posted here long ago, and in my opinion, the IMO holds nothing to help his pending claim and the VA has already fully considered it.(possibly for the migraine claim but I still dont know the basis for that award.)

A good veteran's lawyer will see the prime issue of this claim right away.,an issue that has never been claimed properly yet .

If they don't see it right away -and I cant see how they can miss it, in my opinion- they are NOT a good veteran's lawyer.

[carlie]

Berta,

Roger that . . I see only chances for a FTC which is now way past the two year mark AND/OR 1151

and the IMO has nothing that supports a grant for "necrotizing pancreatitis" even if it had been

claimed, except as under an 1151,residual condition due to medical testing.

I actually thought this condition had been submitted for direct SC and denied all these years.

I believe the medical evidence will probably show somewhere the mental health anxiety, depression

conditions to be related to the necrotizing pancreatitis.

Also, I do feel that the evidence of record to include the IMO was supportive for the SC of headaches

and could be used for the neuropathy.

I'm sure VA has latched onto this part of the IMO stating,

"Mr. xxxxxxx has been recently diagnosed with myotonic dystrophy. This condition i~

hereditary, autosomal dominant and usually characterized by anticipation, that is the

disease is usually manifested at an earlier age with each degeneration. It is a chronic,

slowly progressive multi-systemic disease which clinically presents with muscle wasting,

iridescent cataracts resulting in lens opacities, heart conduction defects and occasionally,

with endocrine changes. I am concerned over the fact that this examinee's father, who

was the only apparent with a tremor, did not appear to have Mr. xxxxxxx's clinical

presentation."

I am getting a much better understanding now.

All of this is why I was fairly insistant in asking and posting the following,in another topic thread,

"Your claim issues are in no way a slam dunk.

Even with years of reading posts here I am never quite clear on what exact issues

you have requested SC for.

I know the necrotizing Pancreatitis (sp), but thats the only true issue I am clear on

for your claim. Other issues are very broad based.

I guess I should ask - exactly what are the conditions you are trying to get SC'd?

Diagnosed conditions of:

1)

2)

3)

etc....

The decision should clearly state what evidence was considered and how it was either applied or not applicable

to your issue/s and why the issue/s remain denied.

Until you can post this - much of anything is just a guess.

I still do not know what conditions you have been requesting SC for.

In your medical evidence, have the docs stated - they have reviewed

your SMR's and that the condition/s diagnosed while you were hospitalized/treated for

while on active duty - are the same conditions and/or a disease progression

of the diagnosis of what you were hospitalized/treated for while on active duty.

I still do not know what conditions you have been requesting SC for.

What medical conditions have you requested either direct or secondary SC for ?

What medical conditions has VA denied SC for ?

I would see if this evidence above is listed in a decision somewhere and if it was factored in

to prior adjudication for any issue/s you are currently SC'd for.

If it has been then I would want to know if it has been factored into the conditions on

appeal. This is hardcore evidence for the some of the medical conditions you posted

to be under appeal. This evidence would be both probable and credible for your appeal.

Again, maybe I missed the answer.

What conditions is your current 50 percent for and what evaluation for each ?"

Carlie- the prime disability of Necrotizing pancreatitis has never been claimed.

I studied as much as I could find years ago on this disability. It is not the same as a generic claim for chronic pancreatitis.

Not the same thing at all.It can be fatal as Retiredat44 has told us.

In the partial SOC Retriredat44 posted here years at hadit it stated:

“The VA examination shows a diagnosis of status post necrotizing pancreatitis secondary

to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with residual chronic pancreatitis. “

----------------------------------------------------------

This excerpt from a lawyer's web site says:

“Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) remains the most common cause of iatrogenic pancreatitis [1]. Studies have shown post-ERCP complications were responsible for greater than 65 percent of malpractice claims [2, 3]. “

http://americanmedic...ctice-case.html

Th term “Iatrogenic”means caused by a doctor or medical procedure.

I have read retired's IMO, the parts that were posted here long ago, and in my opinion, the IMO holds nothing to help his pending claim and the VA has already fully considered it.(possibly for the migraine claim but I still dont know the basis for that award.)

A good veteran's lawyer will see the prime issue of this claim right away.,an issue that has never been claimed properly yet .

If they don't see it right away -and I cant see how they can miss it, in my opinion- they are NOT a good veteran's lawyer.

[Hoppy]

Retired,

I recently got my server problems resolved and will be posting more consistently on the weekends. I usually work on hadit on the weekends. However, every now and then carlie pm’s me as she did today and I try to respond as soon as possible. She asked that I take a look and see if there is anything I can add to help with your claim and medical care. There are two areas that you have discussed and which the IMO talks about that caught my eye. During my life time I have spent a significant amount of time with individuals diagnosed both with MS and lead poisoning.

The lead poisoning case involved a automotive painter who used lead based paints. He suffered from a gradual loss of nerve function that declined when he was about sixty. At the age of sixty he was wheel chair bound. He died because his nerve function was not sufficient to allow him to clear his throat while eating dinner. He went into his room to eat alone and nobody noticed that he was having breathing problems until it was too late. My memory of his case involves the fact that the lead migrates through the body and eventually coats the nerves causes a loss of nerve function.

I have another friend who I still see several times a week who was discharged from the Marine Corp at the age of 30 after he was diagnosed with MS. His symptoms have varied throughout his life time and he actually functions better at the age of 67 than he did at the time they discharged him. He talks a lot about symptoms that primarily affected one side of his body. Like you, it involves loss of muscle control and numbness on one side of his body.

I wonder how they would do a differential diagnosis involving lead exposure and the MS and myotonic dystrophy. This is probably why you had so many tests. I also wonder if they just threw in the myotonic dystrophy as a provisional diagnosis pending better work up on possible lead poisoning and MS.

In any event I have vague memories of “gulf war burning field” veterans being service connected on a presumptive basis for MS. It was a controversial situation because if I remember correctly, there was a statistical linkage that these veterans were diagnosed with MS at a rate twice the national average. People in the VA system thought that was not a high enough linkage to warrant a connection. Also if I remember correctly the decision was a unilateral determination invoked by the head of the VBA at that time. All this being said and assuming that my memory serves me correctly and you are eventually diagnosed with MS I would consider getting a lawyer involved and seeking a similar presumptive connection for any members of the service who were exposed to the same types of chemicals as the Gulf War veterans.

Also, if you are eventually diagnosed with lead poisoning, there should be some statistical data base on lead exposure and I would seek an attorney’s advice on how link your lead exposure in Europe to any diagnosis later in life.

“Chronic pancreatitis secondary to exposure to medications has been recognized, and more recently we are starting to recognize that solvents may have endocrinological toxicity.”

The association between solvents and pancreatitis also need to be developed.

It appears to me that most of your current problems including neurological/muscular and pancreatitis that are not currently service connected will rely on statistical linkage to obtain service connection. The associations between these chemicals and your symptoms are addressed by the IMO. However, it appears the IMO did not work. If it were me I would develop the hard facts as determined by studies of the general population. These types of study’s are out there or will soon be available. The doctors and lawyers keep up to date on this type of information. In the cases I have read and worked on, any time the IMO acknowledges general associations without specifically identifying the numbers, such as “twice as frequent as the general population” and failed to specifically attach or identify by name and publication date a peer reviewed study, the raters will not give any weight to the IMO. The raters write a vague denial that just blows smoke. I have helped veterans whose claims were denied even though they had IMO’s with references to general medical knowledge. All I did was tell the veteran to submit a peer reviewed study that supported what the original IMO stated as “general medical knowledge” and the claims were awarded. I am not saying it will be that simple to win your claim. However, right now the IMO is good. It is just a question if the associations between chemicals and your current conditions were properly supported by specific enough data to get past these hard as—raters.