Flatbroke Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Got the envelope and was service connected for 5 new items but still not at 100% 60% for IHD 50% for PTSD 20% for back 20% for Type II (new) 10% for tinnus 10% for flat feet 10% for PN upper extremities left side (new) 10% for " " " right side (new) 10% for " lower " left side (new) 10% for " " " right side (new) 210% added but only 93.179% by the VA's math Was denied for Adominal Aorta Anuresum. Now I need to file for IU and send in copies of being approved for Social Security Disabality. Need to file for sleep apnea with a cpap secondary to PTSD. Dont know why the PN's are not bilaterial instead of for each side??????? Back to the same old games and appeal the 20% for tpye II cause I am on med's, restrictive diet, and restrictive life style that should be 40%. Kilo 4/12 VIET NAM 11/67-11/68 (TET) HQ 1/10 LeJune 68 C 1/10 LeJune 68-69 HQ Marine Security Guard School 69 Great Lakes Brig - Corrections 11/69 - 3/70 Semper Fi Everything stays the same until it changes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Congrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Content Curator/HadIt.com Elder Vync Posted May 5, 2011 Content Curator/HadIt.com Elder Share Posted May 5, 2011 Congratulations on your win! If you can get sleep apnea w/CPAP approved, that should add another solid 50% and push you to 100% combined. Also take a close look at the denial for the AAA. It is possible that an IMO might make a big difference there. Don't give up! "If it's stupid but works, then it isn't stupid."- From Murphy's Laws of Combat Disclaimer: I am not a legal expert, so use at own risk and/or consult a qualified professional representative. Please refer to existing VA laws, regulations, and policies for the most up to date information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berta Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 WOW this is GREAT news Flatbroke. Yes by all means file for TDIU. What did the decision say as to why they didn't consider you for TDIU ? GRADUATE ! Nov 2nd 2007 American Military University ! When thousands of Americans faced annihilation in the 1800s Chief Osceola's response to his people, the Seminoles, was simply "They(the US Army)have guns, but so do we." Sameo to us -They (VA) have 38 CFR ,38 USC, and M21-1- but so do we. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator broncovet Posted May 5, 2011 Moderator Share Posted May 5, 2011 Congratulations on your win! Not to take away from your deserved win, I would like to see someone "test" this fuzzy math in court, as I am not sure it has been tested. I am not sure congress intended for a Veteran to have disabilities totaling 210 percent and then compensate him at the 90% level because "that is the way the VA has always done it". If I am wrong, and there is a "fuzzy math" regulation, then I will retract my statement, but I know of no regulation that requires the VA to use the "whole man" fuzzy math concept, but instead they get away with this because, in part, no one ever took them to task on this by testing it in court. There was considerable discussion on this board about Bradley Vs Peake, whether this "100 plus 60" was a combined number, or added number. After reading much about it, it is very unclear that there is any regulation at all supporting the VA's method of "combining" disability percentages using the whole man method. While there is no regulation preventing the VA using the "whole man" method that insurance companies invented to reduce payments to beneficiaries, I tend to think the "favor the Veteran" rule should dominate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyTexas Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 I concur 100%. Congratulations on your win! Not to take away from your deserved win, I would like to see someone "test" this fuzzy math in court, as I am not sure it has been tested. I am not sure congress intended for a Veteran to have disabilities totaling 210 percent and then compensate him at the 90% level because "that is the way the VA has always done it". If I am wrong, and there is a "fuzzy math" regulation, then I will retract my statement, but I know of no regulation that requires the VA to use the "whole man" fuzzy math concept, but instead they get away with this because, in part, no one ever took them to task on this by testing it in court. There was considerable discussion on this board about Bradley Vs Peake, whether this "100 plus 60" was a combined number, or added number. After reading much about it, it is very unclear that there is any regulation at all supporting the VA's method of "combining" disability percentages using the whole man method. While there is no regulation preventing the VA using the "whole man" method that insurance companies invented to reduce payments to beneficiaries, I tend to think the "favor the Veteran" rule should dominate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts