Seeing Is Believing!

[Bigred122]

Why does the VA even have a disability program if they aren't going to play fair? I learned early that the VA played the game of LIFE by their own rules.And if they didn't have a rule for it, they made one up just for us and it would only be used once so that it wouldn't be considered the rule of Law.Last weekend, I received my medical records for my first 2 years in the sevice from the NPRC. Being in sports all my life, I was a suck up the pain kinda guy, so I didn't go a medical facility unless it was emergency in nature. So my records were a whole 12 pages long.(I create more nowadays in just one day) And to make me feel like one of the gang, two pages were missing.Would you believe those two pages just happen to be very important to my claim?(Silly me, you all have been at this for years and have heard this story a thousand times.) I know we have people from the VA who come here. Can someone explain to me why these records disappear. Are they paid to process claims or are they paid to sabotage claims. It happens so regularly, it just can't be fate.It has to be on purpose.The odds at them losing 2 pages out of 14 and those 2 pages being key to me getting disability must be HUGE. They did screwup and leave 1 page that may help me on my AO claim from FT Gordon .I don't remember my visit to the hospital there, but it occurred after 2 weekends of guard duty at one of the AO dump sites.It showed a strange rash, dizzyness, diarreaha, and a strange weakness. It was on a important medical document from Basic trainning.One of the page/pages missing was a 4 day stay at the base clinic/make do hospital for unknown reasons. This was key evidence again to my exposure to AO. The other document was a visit to mental health DR. In the letter they sent with my records, they said to call and give them special permission to send other misc records. Of course when I called them today, they had no clue to what the record clerk was talking about. So I told them what was missing and they said they would check again. (Some things have to be authorized twice by me makes no sense)I told them I was up against a 4/29 deadline, so hopefully they will be found.lol I can't believe that there isn't some hidden rule that says to deny deny deny! Lets keep the playing field fair and just decide things on the evidence. It's too late for me now, but I suggest if your thinking about filing a claim, get ALL your records first. Then file your your claim. By filing first they know what records to make disappear. They are the dealer in this card game and they decide what cards we get or don't get.Thanks for giving me a place to vent.Deadline date is approaching in 2 weeks so the end might be near for dealing with this silly game. Get my approval/denial and then to decide what to do. A hundred trees gave their life, just to save a few more government jobs.Was it worth it? We will see!! Mike

[carlie]

Sure glad your not processing my claim for AO.lol I would have to have a picture of me bathing in a 50 gal barrel of AO, With signed avidavits from two Federal Judges that they personally opened the prevuious un openned container of AO. That I have been placed in a sealed building for the past 40 years since bathing in the barrel and have only been exposused to filter air and ate only food that was organically grown in the same sterile conditions.The only people who would qualify would be the sprayers and the handlers.( which is who I thought originally were the only ones who qualified.)I have read alot of the cases at theUSCAVC and many that were granted had far less evidence than me on either of my claims. Why is the word Presumptive being used constantly by the Secretart of the VA. Everywhere one looks it says all you have to do is show a presumption that you MIGHT have been exposed and that is what I gathered for them.

Bigred12,

Those that know Hoppy - know for a fact you would be very fortunate to have him rate your VBA claim.

At least he bothers to consider all of the evidence.

A claimant has to prove exposure - presumptive's have nothing to do with the exposure itself - presumptive's relate to the

disability's caused by the exposure.

People are reaching out and trying to provide you some accurate guidance, so try to not be so irritable and they might

keep helping you.

BTW - you can't get a lawyer for VBA claims until you get a denial first.

[Bigred122]

Bigred12,

Those that know Hoppy - know for a fact you would be very fortunate to have him rate your VBA claim.

At least he bothers to consider all of the evidence.

A claimant has to prove exposure - presumptive's have nothing to do with the exposure itself - presumptive's relate to the

disability's caused by the exposure.

People are reaching out and trying to provide you some accurate guidance, so try to not be so irritable and they might

keep helping you.

BTW - you can't get a lawyer for VBA claims until you get a denial first.

Geesh, I was just teasing Hoppy. Does anyone have sense of humor anymore? It is far better medicine than meds!! Hoppy, wanted me to persue some skin problem and that is not my evidence. I am a redhead so I'm sensitive to many chemicals. My evidence is having health problem that are proven to NOT be herediatary(sp). How about explaining to me how the Blue Water Navy qualifies. They can't prove exposure, they were 30+ miles from land. I repeat, by what everyone hear states the ONLY ones who qualify would be the Air Force handlers, pilots and the people storing the chemicals. No infantry, artillery or armour would qualify because they didn't handle the chemicals. Yet the VA says that they do qualify. Please explain to me because it can't be both ways. I thought Hadit was here to support the troops,not judge us and shoot down our claims.The VA does this to each of us everyday. Be here to help us win our claims by being supportive and not so critical if we don't do or see things the same way you do. Maybe my way will get me approved in less than a year, I don't know I have no experience at this. Most of you have been persueing claims several years old. Don't take it personal, but I would see that as not doing it the right way hence all the denials. Most lawyers are interested until the claims have aged so that they can get more money from us.If theyjoined to soon, they'd only make about $500 average on a claim. They want their 25% back pay money for doing nothing. It's the same in civilian life. Most lawyers are lazy and only want the easy money cases. When I started I contacted about 30 so called Vet advocate lawyers before ione finally answered me. And he was honest enough to tell me what I just said to you on how they chose their cases. There is a few Pro Bono Vet lawyers but most of them only do the High Court Cases. If I wouldn't have listen to that 9th District Court Judge and would have filed a tort claim within the 2 year deadline, lawyers would be lining up to represent me because they can milk the claim for a few years, get the back pay as well as damages for the misdeed. Thats how the game is played.Just like it is rare to get SSD without a lawyer, you don't need them to win, but you still have to have them for you to have a chance at winning.So we will know pretty soon what the answer is. And I will let all you naysayers know if I won or you were right. I have no problems saying I was wrong. Now let me warn you in advance, even if I only get 10% on each claim, I will consider that a win. If I get 100%, I will consider that a GREAT WIN! And I will expect each of you to bow before me as I enter the room!!(Hits the Applause Button and Laugh track) Mike

[Bigred122]

Red

What you will need is a medical statement from a MD that states it is at least as likely as not that you got Hep C from the transfusion. You need the negative type evidence that rules out alternative causes of Hep C and you need positive evidence to show how you got the Hep C. You want a medical statement from someone like Dr. Bash that knows exactly what the VA wants in a nexus letter. Unless you fit exactly the requirements for an AO presumptive diagnosis you again must prove it. If it was me I would try and hire a VA lawyer. If they won't take the case then you know you have a ways to go.

Thank you John for suggesting Dr Bash!! I looked him up on the net and contacted him by email this morning. Hopefully I can afford his services! I know it would be a good investment, but money is already stretch as thin as can be.I'm already not getting 5 prescriptions I can't afford. And the pills just don't fill my stomache very well! Thanks again John for the info!!! I will pass the Drs name around to many I know are in need of his services. Mike

[Hoppy]

Bigred

The last two paragraphs in this response are the best I can come up with at this time. It is based on the tactics the VA has used to deny claims Filed by Fort Gordon veterans. I am not sufficiently updated to base any opinion on what you have recently posted on hadit .

"I thought Hadit was here to support the troops,not judge us and shoot down our claims"

The last thing I won't to do is give a veteran a false sense of security that results in a lack of preparation that results in delays or denial. Or worse yet the false belief that they are going to get a wind fall. We have had veterans show up here with claims originally file in 2005 who think they are getting 40 years worth of retro at 100% for a back condition. They send me emails telling me how they told their wives and friends their troubles are over and they are going to be rich. I have had to tell them to slow down and get all the facts. I have never advised a veteran to give up. I tell them to get other opinions and service officers. I am not the final opinion on anything.

"When I started I contacted about 30 so called Vet advocate lawyers before ione finally answered me. And he was honest enough to tell me what I just said to you on how they chose their cases."

These attorneys only get paid when they win. They will prescreen claims or they will go out of business. They can be the best attorney in the world. However, if they are a bad business man they will not be able to practice law.

"Sure glad your not processing my claim for AO.lol I would have to have a picture of me bathing in a 50 gal barrel of AO, With signed avidavits from two Federal Judges that they personally opened the prevuious un openned container of AO."

You know that I really would not require such a picture and affidavit that's why you are laughing. In any case check out my drawing. I had a little extra time and I enjoy drawing. See the attached drawing.

"Lol" I am glad you can still laugh. Many of the veterans I have helped here on hadit have been ready to jump of a bridge or go to the RO and start shooting people. You would not believe how many phone calls I have gotten at 2:00 AM from veterans who are ready to go off the deep end. Sometimes I feel like the cop who's job it is to talk to the jumpers. I am not complaining. It comes with the territory.

In any event all I want to do is put you at a place where there was agent orange and the VA considers the chemical "active".

"Hoppy, wanted me to persue some skin problem and that is not my evidence. I am a redhead so I'm sensitive to many chemicals. My evidence is having health problem that are proven to NOT be herediatary(sp). How about explaining to me how the Blue Water Navy qualifies. They can't prove exposure, they were 30+ miles from land."

I am a big blond. For the last twenty years the angioedma got so severe I am now a "bubble boy". The doctors do not want me going anywhere there is a possibility i will run into lite hydrocarbons.

I told you to strengthen the proof of exposure to AO. I asked you to consider looking for diagnoses you may have forgotten about in association with the skin condition. The VA is diagnosis driven. If they gave you a diagnosis it is very hard for the VA to rebut it many years after discharge.

In my explanation of my claim I went pretty fast on some of the criteria I dealt with. The VA actually tried to derail my claim by scheduling tests that would determine it was hereditary or caused by foods or pollens. Even though the tests the VA scheduled proved that my condition was not hereditary or caused by foods or pollens, I had to prove exposure to the same chemicals in the military as the chemicals that were responsible for the post service angioedema.

We once had a senior service officer who posted on hadit who called us names. I can't remember what they where. However, he thought we were a bunch of babies trying to get money we did not deserve. One day he posted a curriculum vitae with all the training he had been given by his service organization. I had to take a shot at him by posting my curriculum vitae. One thing I did not put on mine at that time is that in addition to the decade I spent in various schools for the purpose of learning how to develop medical / legal evidence was that I worked as a turf and irrigation specialist for city government. 1000 people applied for my job. They gave a civil service exam that was written by people who had four year degrees in park management. Only five people passed the exam; three guys with BS degrees in park management, one guy with ten years experience and me. I had the highest score on the exam and was hired.

With the above training and work experience which required understanding and preventing the contamination of the environment by chemicals used in parks owned by city government, this is what I have to say about your Blue Water Navy question.

The VA is not service connecting people thirty miles off shore as far as I know. There had to be the confirmable presence aboard ships with "brown water" exposure.

http://miapblog.us/?p=828

From VA's Jan 2010 Comp and Pension bulletin

Policy (211)

To date, we have received verification from various sources showing that a number of offshore "blue water" naval vessels conducted operations on the inland "brown water" rivers and delta areas of Vietnam. We have also identified certain vessel types that operated primarily or exclusively on the inland waterways. The ships and dates of inland waterway service are listed below. If a Veteran's service aboard one of these ships can be confirmed through military records during the time frames specified, then exposure to herbicide agents can be presumed without further development.

My experience shows that chemicals that are used by city governments 50 miles inland are found in all the bays and shorelines. Exposure to the water is the key. The chemicals are transported by the water. The chemicals have "active" life spans. All defoliant chemicals will biodegrade. We are not talking about plutonium. The chemicals used by city governments degrade in six months. I am not an expert on agent orange. However, I did find some cases which show how the VA is interpreting the "active" life of agent orange.

The only case I found from Fort Gordon that was awarded is probably the same one you were talking about. This case involves a veteran who claimed to be game warden. He claimed his duties actually involved working with the barrels of agent orange. As far as I can tell from the decision is that the VA was not able to confirm that he actually worked with agent orange. However, they confirmed both with his testimony and the opinion from an expert on the assignment of MOS's that his work could have put him in the area where the chemicals were sprayed three months after they stopped spraying. There was no evidence that the chemical was not active at that time. The claim was awarded on equipoise of the evidence. There was no evidence against the claim and the evidence in favor of the claim was sufficient to be as likely as not that he was exposed to agent orange. The association with diabetes was presumptive based on exposure to agent orange.

This next case also shows how the VA has interpreted evidence regarding the active life of agent orange. The claim was denied because the VA did not have evidence that agent orange was "active" when the veteran was stationed at Fort Gordon. It has occurred to me that this could be your case and I am just regurgitating what you already know.

Excerpts from the case.

According to the Department of Defense information herbicides were tested in Fort Gordon from December 1966 to October 1967. There is no indication that herbicides were transported or stored in Fort Gordon in 1972.

Technical Report 114 reported that exposure to an herbicide agent (Agent Orange) at Fort Gordon, Georgia was likely on July 15, 1967 to July 17, 1967. The record reveals that the veteran served at Fort Gordon, Georgia in 1971; therefore as far as the evidence reveals, the veteran has not been exposed to an herbicide agent. The Board recognizes the veteran's contention that he was exposed to Agent Orange and his belief that the chemical dioxin stayed in the soil and surrounding areas for 10-20 years; however, the veteran's belief has not been officially proven or recognized by the United States Department of Defense, and Report Number 315 indicates that testing performed in 1970 at Fort Gordon revealed no herbicides or dioxins above the normal level.

"By the time I got there 5/71 there was nothing growing there. It was right on the edge where the spraying was done."

Your statement has merit. They need to develop evidence against the claim. I am presuming they either used or will try to use DOD report 315 as evidence against the claim.

If it were my claim I would be attacking the evidence against the claim. The evidence against the claim could be the DOD report 315. I would get that report and read it. I spent an hour looking for this report on line and could not find it or any other reference to it. I could only confirm that the VA has used this report to deny one claim. If the report does not specifically say they tested the area you are talking about then I would claim the report is too vague to use as evidence.

If I know the way the VA works the following argument might also be applicable on appeal. I would also claim that the report was not provided to you and you were not given the opportunity to have it evaluated by your own experts. I would claim that the discussion of the evidence against the claim only deals with one test results and did not investigate the accuracy of the procedures used to make the conclusions that there were no dioxins above normal levels. I would try to show that the procedures did not comply with accepted scientific test procedures. It would require an opinion from an expert on the test procedure. You could also appeal saying that the presumption that one test result contained in a DOD report is not sufficiently developed or accurate to base a denial. This would throw the ball back into their court.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Hoppy

[Hoppy]

The last paragraph should begin with " If I know the way the VA works"

When I originally posted the last paragraph did not show.

[Hoppy]

By the way, the reason the fluid in the drinking glass is orange is because the (idiot) salesman from the chemical company who sold weed killers

to the city would show up at a safety meeting every year and drink 8 ounces of the weed killer right in front of us. The fluid he drank was not orange.