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

[Berta]

On the PTSD EED claim which was denied-

"Significantly, no earlier medical examination

specifically concludes that the Veteran was unemployable due

solely to service-connected disability.

Thus, based on these facts, an effective date prior to

February 7, 2008 for the award of a TDIU cannot be granted.

See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5110(a) (West 2002) & 38 C.F.R. § 3.400

(2009) (which stipulate that the effective date of an award

of increased compensation will be the date of receipt of the

claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later)."

In essence the BVA is correct here -Unless you received a SSA award solely for PTSD that was dated one year or less prior to the Feb 2008 date they gave you as EED.

If you did receive SSA solely for PTSD and the SSA date of entitlement was prior to the VA decision AND the VA was fully aware of the SSA award then you could potentially recover more TDIU money if you file a CUE claim.

My husband filed for SSA in 1992.Awarded SSA for a then- NSC stroke (now 1151 and direct SC stroke)

The SSA failed to consider his PTSD ( 30 % from the VA) and we filed a Reconsideration request and won it.

The new award from SSA was solely for PTSD with the entitlement date one year prior to the date of application as this was last date he worked.

I used this date to continue to get his PTSD rating higher after he died as he had a claim in rating board for that the day he died.

VA concurred and awarded posthumously a 100% SC rating for PTSD with the same EED as the SSA gave him.

They ignored his SSA records for almost 3 years until I went over to the VAMC to see his VA Shrink who sent them a letter, gave me copies of all of his psyche stuff to send them, and the shrink told them he had seen the veteran's SSA award for PTSD that I brought into his office and yet the VARO said they never had received.He stated in the letter that my husband was totally unemployable due to his combat related PTSD.The records he gave me (which VA had but failed to consider in many denials)proved that as well as the SSA award.

So this is why I asked about whether you get SSA for PTSD or for any other SC disabilities.

VA has to know of the SSA award to grant any additional potential retro because they are supposed to get the SSA records and then consider them if they are relevant to the claim.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Berta

[pkelly4576]

Still trying to scan the decision. I did call back the person from the NVLSP, his name was Dean but he was out of the office. Still awaiting his phone call back. In the decision letter it states that service connection for CAD, status post myocardial infarction has been established as directly to military service. If you want Berta, I can email you my scaned decision, because I am unable to delete person information.

Charles Kelly

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."

[Berta]

I just thought you could cover the c file number, name and address -before you scanned it.

I do that all the time with index cards taped on to cover the personal stuff.

Dean or someone from NVLSP might want you to attach the entire AMC letter to their email.

[pkelly4576]

I did talk to Dean and I had to fax him the decision from the AMC. I also faxed him parts of the BVA decision, from April 2010, where my claim was remanded to the AMC, due to new evidence on my CAD. I think that he was a little confused, he thought that my case was a Nehmer. I explained to him that it should be a Nehmer and I could not understand why my claim was sent to the AMC and not to a Nehmer processing center.

What I really do not understand now is why after the AMC decision, I received a call from someone at the AMC named Bruce who ask me to send more evidence from my current doctor. They the VA is so messed up it is not funny. I am going to rescan the decision and try to post as an attachment.

Coachchas

I just thought you could cover the c file number, name and address -before you scanned it.

I do that all the time with index cards taped on to cover the personal stuff.

Dean or someone from NVLSP might want you to attach the entire AMC letter to their email.

[pkelly4576]

I just thought you could cover the c file number, name and address -before you scanned it.

I do that all the time with index cards taped on to cover the personal stuff.

Dean or someone from NVLSP might want you to attach the entire AMC letter to their email.

Well here goes I did scann and I am sending decision as an attachment...

coachchas

[carlie]

pk,

It seems to me that the AMC wants updated medical evidence (METS,etc...) so they can do an evaluation

for your percentage, as shown in the decision, something like, SC is granted at zero percent,

pending a medical opinion.

I do not see at this point that you will continue to be evaluated at the zero percent level, pending

that medical opinion.

JMHO