Claim Denied In 2006

[RONC]

In 2006 I filed for AO prostate cancer. I was in the brown water navy and and was aboard ship. My claim was turned down and stated " no proof of "boots on the ground" denied and "case closed". Since then I have filed a new claim with plenty of proof per the denial. My new claim was filed Nov. 2010. My question is if approved do they retro pay me back to 2006 or pay me back to the new clam(2010?). Thank you. I did nothing when denied in 2006 until I filed new claim in 2010. Still retro back to 2006? Thanks.

Edited January 30, 2011 by RONC

[RONC]

"It does not appear that your case falls within the guide lines for readjudication under the Nehmer court order because your claim was originally filed after the VA added prostate cacer to it"s list of presumptively service conneted diseases. ..end. "

That doesnt make sense-

If you filed a claim for prostate AO cancer after those regs were published and it was denied due to no proof of boots on the ground-which you now have- why wouldn't it fall under Nehmer?

It would Not however be part of the new AO presumptive adjudications.

I think we are missing something here- but don't know what it is or why NVLSP would make that statement.

Did your prostate cancer raise to a ratable level when that claim was denied?

I am baffled by the statement from NVLSP.

I had surgery in 2001 and PSA remained stable until 2007(recurrence). My last (Nov.) new claim noted my recurrence. A couple of posts(another site) told me that my 2006 claim was "closed" and regardless of new evidence (BOG) Nehmer would not come into play here so retro back to No.2010??

[Berta]

The 2010 edition of the VBM by NVLSP lists USS Montrose as docking in Vietnam or in tributaries of Vietnam for the entire period of the ship's service during the Vietnam War.(page 197)

Also NVLSP states that "If a veteran can prove that he was onboard a ship on the VA's list (the same list in the VBM)

on the date the ship operated on the inland waterways or docked, no additional development is necessary to establish the presumption of Agent Orange exposure.

It seems this would confirm your exposure and you would not need further proof of exposure.

Prostate cancer went on the AO list in November I believe of 1996.

When you filed the new claim -did you mention they had denied in the past claim?

The agentorange email addy at NVLSP is only regarding the three new presumptives.

BTW- one of the co directors of NVLSP told me I would never get my FTCA offset refunded by the VA. This was over a decade ago,and against what I had interpreted that he had written in the VBM.

FTCA laws are very very involved. I think maybe he was missing something from the FTCA regs when he said it would not be refunded at all.or missing a point had made to him.

I got my refund of offset a few months ago.

Even the wonderful lawyers at NVLSP can misinterpret stuff sometimes.

I wonder if they did in that email.

You can appeal the EED if it isnt right- a reconsideration request might go faster then the formal NOD but you dont have a denial at all yet on the newer claim.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Berta

[RONC]

The 2010 edition of the VBM by NVLSP lists USS Montrose as docking in Vietnam or in tributaries of Vietnam for the entire period of the ship's service during the Vietnam War.(page 197)

Also NVLSP states that "If a veteran can prove that he was onboard a ship on the VA's list (the same list in the VBM)

on the date the ship operated on the inland waterways or docked, no additional development is necessary to establish the presumption of Agent Orange exposure.

It seems this would confirm your exposure and you would not need further proof of exposure.

Prostate cancer went on the AO list in November I believe of 1996.

When you filed the new claim -did you mention they had denied in the past claim?

The agentorange email addy at NVLSP is only regarding the three new presumptives.

BTW- one of the co directors of NVLSP told me I would never get my FTCA offset refunded by the VA. This was over a decade ago,and against what I had interpreted that he had written in the VBM.

FTCA laws are very very involved. I think maybe he was missing something from the FTCA regs when he said it would not be refunded at all.or missing a point had made to him.

I got my refund of offset a few months ago.

Even the wonderful lawyers at NVLSP can misinterpret stuff sometimes.

I wonder if they did in that email.

You can appeal the EED if it isnt right- a reconsideration request might go faster then the formal NOD but you dont have a denial at all yet on the newer claim.

[/quot

Thank You Berta, I really appreciate your time.

[Berta]

"Even the wonderful lawyers at NVLSP can misinterpret stuff sometimes."

It is often because they base a response on usually limited info from us if we talk to them by phone or email.

I found this to be true with VA lawyers I dealt with too but sometimes they definitely tried to negatively affect my confidence in my medical evidence.

They can sometimes even play dumb. It is just part of their job if you have a FTCA matter. I have a lot of respect for them and ALL lawyers

Even a potential IMO doc might not want to prepare your IMO if you don't present it to them well by phone or by email.

They need facts from the clinical record.

But I need to say something here today---

1.Those of us who are getting NVLSP AO responses in email- this does not mean we have succeeded in our AO claims---

It means that if we do succeed==== ( and the AO raters are being checked and doubled checked because as the Nehmer Training Guide says they can be sanctioned for errors)

====it means that NVLSP will ensure we get the proper retro we are due.

I don't read any more into NVLSP responses then what they say.

2. Sometimes we are asked here for someone to give a definite Yes you will succeed, or yes this is this or that.

And often many of us can say with experience and knowledge of the regs and evidence -that the claim will certainly succeed- or it SHOULD succeed.

But we never knows what the VA envelope will contain and it has taken many of us here YEARS to succeed even though our evidence was probative.

We base opinions here on what is posted or attached.

What sometimes happens (happened to me MANY times) is that a claimant says one thing or this and that and then when you see actual records ,etc, the facts are completely different.

This is due to the confines of the internet- no one wants to post a book about their claim and if they do-who has time to read it?

The VA sure wont.

My point is-we base our opinions here on what we read in the posts and there is no way a post can contain all of the pertinent info.

Most of the time the info is enough for us to make an educated take on the outcome.

But when we are asked opinions as to a claim's success-=based on limited info here- it isnt fair to us.

All vets here need HOPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Claims that seems awful early on can still succeed.The former BVA attorney Pete and I know from Prodigy BBS said he believed 99 % of all claims can succeed.

A high percentage but with leg work on the claimants part-I would think most claims would succeed too.

But many claims need a one to one. That is what our well paid service reps are for.

And even then you could get a negative opinion from a rep and succeed on the claim anyhow.

That is all I have to say on this----- I personally have had contact with vets who want me to state in writing something they think will help their claim or that I think they should succeed.

One even asked me to write a buddy statement as to something that happened aboard their ship ! (I am a CIVILIAN!)

VA doesn't care what I think about anyone's claim and these are obviously vets who have lots of leg work yet to do to even come close to an award.

Edited February 2, 2011 by Berta

[aldenp]

Hello, I have been enjoying your site for a couple of years, thought it was time to say thanks. All of you do a great job of offering help to fellow veterans, reading your posts have helped me a lot, and have given me the confidence I needed to pursue handling my clains. Thank you, aldenp

[RONC]

"Even the wonderful lawyers at NVLSP can misinterpret stuff sometimes."

It is often because they base a response on usually limited info from us if we talk to them by phone or email.

I found this to be true with VA lawyers I dealt with too but sometimes they definitely tried to negatively affect my confidence in my medical evidence.

They can sometimes even play dumb. It is just part of their job if you have a FTCA matter. I have a lot of respect for them and ALL lawyers

Even a potential IMO doc might not want to prepare your IMO if you don't present it to them well by phone or by email.

They need facts from the clinical record.

But I need to say something here today---

1.Those of us who are getting NVLSP AO responses in email- this does not mean we have succeeded in our AO claims---

It means that if we do succeed==== ( and the AO raters are being checked and doubled checked because as the Nehmer Training Guide says they can be sanctioned for errors)

====it means that NVLSP will ensure we get the proper retro we are due.

I don't read any more into NVLSP responses then what they say.

2. Sometimes we are asked here for someone to give a definite Yes you will succeed, or yes this is this or that.

And often many of us can say with experience and knowledge of the regs and evidence -that the claim will certainly succeed- or it SHOULD succeed.

But we never knows what the VA envelope will contain and it has taken many of us here YEARS to succeed even though our evidence was probative.

We base opinions here on what is posted or attached.

What sometimes happens (happened to me MANY times) is that a claimant says one thing or this and that and then when you see actual records ,etc, the facts are completely different.

This is due to the confines of the internet- no one wants to post a book about their claim and if they do-who has time to read it?

The VA sure wont.

My point is-we base our opinions here on what we read in the posts and there is no way a post can contain all of the pertinent info.

Most of the time the info is enough for us to make an educated take on the outcome.

But when we are asked opinions as to a claim's success-=based on limited info here- it isnt fair to us.

All vets here need HOPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Claims that seems awful early on can still succeed.The former BVA attorney Pete and I know from Prodigy BBS said he believed 99 % of all claims can succeed.

A high percentage but with leg work on the claimants part-I would think most claims would succeed too.

But many claims need a one to one. That is what our well paid service reps are for.

And even then you could get a negative opinion from a rep and succeed on the claim anyhow.

That is all I have to say on this----- I personally have had contact with vets who want me to state in writing something they think will help their claim or that I think they should succeed.

One even asked me to write a buddy statement as to something that happened aboard their ship ! (I am a CIVILIAN!)

VA doesn't care what I think about anyone's claim and these are obviously vets who have lots of leg work yet to do to even come close to an award.