Jump to content
  • Donation Box

    Please donate to support the community.
    We appreciate all donations!
  • Advertisemnt

  • 14 Questions about VA Disability Compensation Benefits Claims

    questions-001@3x.png

    When a Veteran starts considering whether or not to file a VA Disability Claim, there are a lot of questions that he or she tends to ask. Over the last 10 years, the following are the 14 most common basic questions I am asked about ...
    Continue Reading
     
  • Ads

  • Most Common VA Disabilities Claimed for Compensation:   

    tinnitus-005.pngptsd-005.pnglumbosacral-005.pngscars-005.pnglimitation-flexion-knee-005.pngdiabetes-005.pnglimitation-motion-ankle-005.pngparalysis-005.pngdegenerative-arthitis-spine-005.pngtbi-traumatic-brain-injury-005.png

  • Advertisemnt

  • Advertisemnt

  • Ads

  • Can a 100 percent Disabled Veteran Work and Earn an Income?

    employment 2.jpeg

    You’ve just been rated 100% disabled by the Veterans Affairs. After the excitement of finally having the rating you deserve wears off, you start asking questions. One of the first questions that you might ask is this: It’s a legitimate question – rare is the Veteran that finds themselves sitting on the couch eating bon-bons … Continue reading

Sponsored Ads

  •  ad-free-subscription-002.jpeg     fund-the-site.jpg

  • Searches Community Forums, Blog and more

  • 0
mos1833

Clarification Of A Disability Rating

Question

i am trying to understand my first diagnosis code in 1984 as to unlisted conditions,requiring rating by analogy.the last 2 digits will be "99" for all unlisted conditions.if the rating is determined on the bases of residual conditions,the number appropriate to the residual condition will be added,preceded by a hyphen. so when they used 5299-5295 was that indicating there was residual worth rating. thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

Did the 1984 decision contain any ratings at all? I seem to think they rated at some point as 5299-5295 because then there was a ratable residual.

Many of the spinal code ratings , over past years , were changed as this 2010 BVA decision shows:

http://www.va.gov/vetapp10/Files1/1010780.txt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ad

Did the 1984 decision contain any ratings at all? I seem to think they rated at some point as 5299-5295 because then there was a ratable residual.

Many of the spinal code ratings , over past years , were changed as this 2010 BVA decision shows:

http://www.va.gov/vetapp10/Files1/1010780.txt

thanks berta

i know the codes changed.but in 1984 they denied my claim because i had a congential defect,the used the 5299-5295 codes.does that sound right

the reasons and bases stated that a congential defect was not rateable under the va law.can you see why iam confused ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a congenital condition is aggravated by military service you can get SC'ed. It sounds like a bunch of bull to me since they accepted you as able bodied when you enlisted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a congenital condition is aggravated by military service you can get SC'ed. It sounds like a bunch of bull to me since they accepted you as able bodied when you enlisted.

thanks john999

when i started boot camp they changed my medical records,to indicate that the examiner changed medical profile to ( pulhes )and i didnt know any thing about it til i got my smr's after they denied me in 1984 for that defect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a congenital condition is aggravated by military service you can get SC'ed. It sounds like a bunch of bull to me since they accepted you as able bodied when you enlisted.

i agree. when i enlisted in the navy, they allowed me to enlist knowing that i had a bad back because i passed the physical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Ads

  • Ad

  • Latest News
  • Our picks

    • I filed for my mitral valve regurgitation heart disease secondary to a service-connected condition on 7-30-18. It was granted on 8-30-18. Since I filed for this heart valve issue and was awarded, can I still file for hypertension ? I have been seeing comments that you should file for hypertension first and file for heart disease as a secondary. Can I file for hypertension as a secondary to my heart disease ? I am alittle confused on this matter.

      Dan
    • How to Change the Theme - Look and Colors
      How to Change the Theme - Look and Colors
      • 5 replies
    • For Calculating Retro

      VA Disability Compensation Rates 2012 | 2011 | 2010-2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999

      Prior to 1999 check here https://www.hadit.com/va-disability-compensation-rates-historic-for-retro-calculation/
      • 0 replies
    • I am a 100% disabled veteran, At first I was super excited to find out I am getting retro pay for back benefits to 2006. But that was over 2 months ago. I been waiting and waiting and calling to ask them wheres my back pay. They first told me "one month" than I call again. The guy started reading a script of basically "we are malingering on paying you" type crap. I was wondering if there is any number I can call besides that 800-827-1000 number to inquire about my status. I don't know why its taken so long when there is specific information telling them from the judge that VA owes. 

      There was a remanded to see if I was eligible for IU (I get it now since 2014 im actually 90% with 10 of that been IU). I been on SS since 2004. Can Someone help me out? Thank you
      • 6 replies
    • You might have a 38 CFR 3.156 situation-

      meaning the VA might have considered your claim in 95/96 as "not well grounded" and failed to even get your STRs.Or they did get your STRs but never considered the specific entry you cited here.

      Lots of discussion under a search, of 38 CFR. 3.156 (a)(b) (c) ---here is a winner:

      https://community.hadit.com/topic/52994-cue-in-failing-to-apply-the-provisions-of-38-cfr-§-3156c-for-effective-date/

      o

       
        • Thanks
×

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines