Denial Of Smc-K, Svc Connected For Ed Already

[brokensoldier244th]

Has anyone ever seen ED that was service connected, but denied compensation? My wife says I got a letter from the DAV that says compensation for ED was denied. I was granted service connection for ED in March on appeal, effective August of last year, rated 0%. There was no mention of SMC-K at that time in the award letter, so I filed a second claim specifically for SMC-K, with the basis of service connection being already granted for ED. Weird?

Why would the DAV send a letter if the decision isn't 'final'? All the other ones ive gotten from them were the same as the Basis letters from the VA, though, so my next question is WTH?

The letter (DAV) says:This letter is NOT intended to serve as your official notification from the Dept. of Veterans Affairs. You will receive an official decision from the VA upon completion of necessary administrative procedures. The VA reserves the right to modify the decision prior to your official notification.The DAV has reviewed the most recent VA decision concerning your claim for benefits. The VA has taken the following action(s):Entitlement to special monthly compensation based on loss of use is denied.If satisfied with this decision, no further action is necessary.

I just talked to the DAV and the VSO said that there was no evidence of loss of use since I have dependents. ???

I thought that loss of erectile power was considered for SMC-K for ED.

"Special monthly compensation may be paid for loss of use of a

creative organ, as a result of service-connected disability.

38 U.S.C.A. § 1114(k); 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(a). Although the

term "creative organ" is not defined in the law or

regulations, the Office of General Counsel has held that a

"creative organ," as used in 38 U.S.C.A. § 1114(k), refers

to a procreative, or reproductive, organ. VAOPGCPREC 2-00.

In addition, where a veteran has loss of erectile power from

service-connected causes, he is also entitled to special

monthly compensation for loss of use of a creative organ. VA

Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1, Part VI, 11.25

(Change 85, April 4, 2002); see 38 C.F.R. § 4.115b, Code

7522. Therefore, although not specifically identified as a

"creative organ" in 38 U.S.C.A. § 1114(k) or 38 C.F.R.

§ 3.350, other legal authority clearly establishes that the

penis is a creative organ, for purposes of entitlement to

special monthly compensation."

So, if you have service connected ED, and have dependents, and take ED drugs, you may still be denied SMC-K, according to him. Heads up *ahem* .

CAS

Edited June 30, 2011 by brokensoldier244th

[Chuck75]

Some RO at the VAMC is getting creative in denials. (again!) The only choice I can see is to NOD the denial.

The logic used (on the surface) is reasonable. However it may ignore the facts. Assuming the veteran has reached a "certain age",

It's very likely that any descendents were conceived well before ED related problems occurred. From the bare bones information provided,

I'd guess that this is the case. ED has an effect on the veteran's "quality of life" more than the existence of descendents. After all,

descendents are possible with ED. (Details omitted)

Edited June 30, 2011 by Chuck75

[brokensoldier244th]

I'm almost 35. My ED symptoms have gotten progressively worse since 2002, stemming from a degenerative back injury to the lower lumbar spine. My ED decision states that there is the possibility of impingement of the nerves controlling that aspect of things, and that was the basis for the granting of ED. My last daughter was born with some considerable work in 2008. I filed for ED last year.

Man, I don't want to have to NOD this, too.

Are they going to be this much of a PITA for my depression filing as well?

CAS

Some RO at the VAMC is getting creative in denials. (again!) The only choice I can see is to NOD the denial.

The logic used (on the surface) is reasonable. However it may ignore the facts. Assuming the veteran has reached a "certain age",

It's very likely that any descendents were conceived well before ED related problems occurred. From the bare bones information provided,

I'd guess that this is the case. ED has an effect on the veteran's "quality of life" more than the existence of descendents. After all,

descendents are possible with ED. (Details omitted)

Edited June 30, 2011 by brokensoldier244th

[Philip Rogers]

Wait until you receive the official notice from the VA, before you get all worked up. Anything now is premature!

pr

[brokensoldier244th]

Premature. :-)

CAS

Wait until you receive the official notice from the VA, before you get all worked up. Anything now is premature!

pr

[brokensoldier244th]

I've talked to him twice today to confirm that they denied it, and to have him NOD it as well. I also found out that VONAPP apparently drops claims on occasion-I had filed for depression/chronic pain in May but DAV could see no record of it pending anywhere in the system, so I faxed my confirmation page from Vonapp with my contentions and the Conf. # on it with the date stamp. Good thing I called him. Ill read the reasons and basis tonight when I get home and see what the nitty gritty is.

The mystery is somewhat solved. I read the Reasons and Basis when I got home, and it says that I have fathered children since I was discharged (not in dispute-its been a worsening problem-the ED, not the fathering! :-)) and my original complaint (and past ones) noted prematurity but not total loss of erectile power. (also not in dispute-its been a degenerating condition). The reasons and basis notes the Zoloft I was taking for premturity, but does NOT mention the Vardenifil that I take now, along with the zoloft.

My psychologist continued that through my PCP for my depression, and my PCP prescribed the other while the claim for SMC was in process, but they never noted the new medication in this decision.