Amc

[pkelly4576]

Well someone from the AMC just call me at 10 this morning and told me that they need more info from my current heart doctor. So I assume the letter from the DAV this weekend was not a final decision from the AMC, which I am happy about. I explained to the person that called me that my original claim is from 1994 and 1995. What I do not understand is why my claim was never sent to a Nehmer processing center. I never even received a letter stating that my case was a Nehmer, it was just stated in my original letter from the AMC, that my claim for CAD may be reopened due to knew evidence. This is why it went there for the remands. I know that this sounds confusing but I have every letter that they have sent me from 1994.

IRIS and Peggy also gave me different answers when I called. So I just call my doctor and ask him to send all of my records to this person Bruce, even though they have most of them, maybe they want the most recent.. I ask the AMC official what timeline we are now looking at and he told me that once he gets the records he will try to much it through, maybe another year. We will see. Thanks for listening everyone, I am so glad when I get input from everyone.

Coachchas

[pkelly4576]

Can you scan and attach that letter here? (Cover personal identifying stuff)

I will try to do that. Don't know if I can, but I will try. Which letter the one from the AMC?

[Berta]

Yes- the AMC Letter.

As CArlie said we need to see their reasons and bases for the decision and also the evidence list.

Can you give us the BVA Docket and Citation number?

All BVA decisions and remands are published at the BVA web site yet they do not identify the specific veteran.

Once you scan the letter and save it into a Document , then it will come up when you use the browse button under the Attachment thing below and then you can attach it.

[Berta]

It is best to email NVLSP through their web site for AO issues and the email addy is here:

http://www.nvlsp.org/Information/ArticleLibrary/AgentOrange/AO-VABeginsReview.htm

or copy the questionnaire so they get the info they need when you contact them.

[pkelly4576]

Yes- the AMC Letter.

As CArlie said we need to see their reasons and bases for the decision and also the evidence list.

Can you give us the BVA Docket and Citation number?

All BVA decisions and remands are published at the BVA web site yet they do not identify the specific veteran.

Once you scan the letter and save it into a Document , then it will come up when you use the browse button under the Attachment thing below and then you can attach it.

I did scan the letter and can send it as an attachment, but I am having trouble deleting personal info I might have to rescan it covering up the info. I will also look up the docket number . Will get back to you early afternoon.

Thanks you coachchas

[pkelly4576]

I did scan the letter and can send it as an attachment, but I am having trouble deleting personal info I might have to rescan it covering up the info. I will also look up the docket number . Will get back to you early afternoon.

Thanks you coachchas

I am loooking at the BVA paper work from April 2010, and I only see a docket-number which is 07-15-557. In this paperwork it states that my case for CAD is remanded to the AMC for further development. And from my several postings you can see that their decision for 0 % is wrong.

I hade sent an e-mail to the NVLS concerning my decision and someone called me to get futher information, unfortunatly I was not home. I did call him back and I am waiting to hear from him.

.

[Berta]

Thanks-here is the BVA decision in part and I hope others give an opinion on all this-I focused solely on the CAD issue and agree with you that this should be a Nehmer claim.

The BVA decision was dated April 29,2010 -many months before we even knew that VA would add IHD to the AO presumptive list.I think that is part of the problem as nothing seemed to trigger the AMC to consider this under Nehmer-

You have two possible ways they can SC the CAD- as secondary to your SC PTSD as well as due to Agent Orange.

Do you have the results of the C & P that the BVA ordered? as to covering both the AO potential for SC and also the PTSD potential?

The letter you got with the "0" SC for the CAD is absolutely ridiculous.

I wondered if they should have combined the 70 to perhaps 100% SC with a proper CAD rating and I still wonder if the VA made a typo-otherwise this AMC letter seems to indicate they cannot read (which would not surprise me at all)

I am SO glad you contacted NVLSP on this.

I hope others here will read the entire BVA decision but focus on the CAD part as this vet,in my opinion, has been a victim of a VA snafu and this is the type of major error that NVLSP wanted to prevent when they added sanctions to the Nehmer Training letter.

7. In an unappealed June 1995 rating action, the RO denied

service connection for heart disease, on a direct basis and

as secondary to in-service exposure to herbicides.

8. In an unappealed June 1994 rating action, the RO denied

service connection for heart disease, asserted to be

secondary to the service-connected PTSD.

9. Evidence received since the June 1995 and June 1994

rating actions raises a reasonable possibility of

substantiating the claim for service connection for CAD and

status post myocardial infarction, to include as secondary to

the service-connected PTSD or as secondary to in-service

exposure to herbicides.

“ Importantly,

additional evidence received since that prior final decision

includes a January 2010 letter in which a private treating

physician expressed his opinion that a "definite" cause of

the Veteran's heart disease (defined as status post

myocardial infarction and arterial coronary disease) are

"defoliants otherwise known as Agent Orange."

This additional medical report is clearly probative because

it provides, for the first time, competent evidence of a

possible relationship between the Veteran's diagnosed

cardiovascular disorder and his conceded in-service exposure

to herbicides. Thus, the Board finds that the additional

evidence received since the last prior final denial of

service connection for heart disease, to include as secondary

to in-service exposure to herbicides, in June 1995 raises a

reasonable possibility of substantiating this issue. See

38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (2009). This additional evidence is,

therefore, new and material, as contemplated by the pertinent

law and regulations, and serves as a basis to reopen this

claim. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (2009).”

In the remand it states this:

“For any cardiovascular disorder

diagnosed on examination, the examiner

should express an opinion as to whether

it is at least as likely as not, i.e.,

a 50 percent probability or greater,

that such disorder had its clinical

onset in service or is otherwise

related to active duty, including the

conceded in-service exposure to

herbicides.

If not, the examiner is asked to

express an opinion as to whether it is

at least as likely as not, i.e., a

50 percent probability or greater, that

any cardiovascular disorder diagnosed

on examination was caused or aggravated

(permanently worsened beyond normal

progression) by the service-connected

PTSD. If the examiner finds that the

Veteran's diagnosed cardiovascular

disorder is aggravated by this service-

connected disorder, he/she should

quantify the degree of aggravation.

Complete rationale should be given for

all opinions expressed.”