Carlie, Could You Please Take A Look At This

[bm6546]

Carlie,

I would appreciate it if you would please look at this and tell me what you think. I know you deal a lot with claims that involve a CUE.

I would like your take on this.

Thanks in advance,

Brian

[Hoppy]

Carlie,

“I am in hopes that someone here might have more knowledge or info on 38 USC 336 - in effect, during the OP's timeframe”.

The Case you cited answered your question. You even put the answer in bold. If there was more info that was important it would have been cited by the BVA in the remand you posted. This is a code that applies to combat veterans or service that "simulates war". There is nothing in the code that even hints that it has universal application that would complicate the claim of a non combat veteran. The code you cited only opens the door for further avenues that will allow an increased rating for combat veterans. When I researched this code I did not feel it was worth mentioning. This is due to the fact that the cited code did not preclude eligibility for service connection or continued benefits under other allowable provisions of the code. What I found was that this related to “War time rates under special conditions.” I consider the determination by the rater “not entitled” to mean that the code is not related to Brian’s claim. Brian was not a combat veteran.

I see decisions where raters pile up excessive and unrelated codes that would result in disallowing a claim. One of their favorites is 38 usc 1702. When they deny PTSD claims they will also state that they are also not eligible under 38 usc 1702. This code does not prohibit service connection of PTSD. It is just the way raters like to make a veteran feel like the code is stacked up against them winning their claim. I have seen raters raise the issue of 38 usc 1702 and deny the claim without even obtaining a medical opinion addressing the issues relevant to this section of code.

In Brian’s case the rater stated “current examinatlon does not disclose a compensable condltion. Rating of 3-3-67 amended as follows: 0%.”

The rater does not need any other reason other than the fact the cited exam did not disclose a ratable condition to reduce Brian’s rating. My contention is that the cited exam did not cover a sufficient longitudinal history and did not seek a medical opinion specifically for the purpose of determining the frequency or severity of a paroxysmal condition that was previously known to exist.

The fact that Brian was reduced is the only relevant issue to the CUE claim. Brian was not a combat veteran and would not qualify under 38usc 336. This is my take on this issue.

Edited January 7, 2012 by Hoppy

[Wings]

Hoppy said, "The fact that Brian was reduced is the only relevant issue to the CUE claim"

I agree. ~Wings

[bm6546]

I finally received my medical notes from the VAMC in Reno. I found in these notes where the VA Cardiologist prescribed Metoprolol on 06/10/08 for my SC PAT.

Part of this examination states ECG today normal except terminal R-sided forces.

1. CAD p stents - ok to have Plavix for 4 years. Today he has agreed to BB so will start metoprolol 12.5 mg BID if tolerates this can switch to

Atenolol 25 Titrate upward for BP and HR control.

2. lipids - will try adding fenofibrate 45 mg. Need to watch for muscle aches since significant interaction with simvastatin. Check LFP and LFTs in 2-3

months.

3. PAT - hopefully BB will help slow rate if occurs.

4. Anxiety/depression - watch for depression as starts BB, may help blunt peripheral effects of anxiety.

********************************************

The VA bills me for all my prescriptions except the Metoprolol which is for my SC PAT. So the way I figure this is the VA Medical doctors feel I need Metoprolol for my PAT because it has not gone away, in fact it has gotten worse over the years. I guess the VARO doesn't seem to understand this or they are refusing to read any of this.

[carlie]

bm6546,

Can you post a copy of the original rating decision that granted

SC for your PAT and assigned the 10% evaluation ?

Thanks

[bm6546]

Carlie, I am attaching 2 pages that show my originaL rating decision FOR MY 10%.

Brian

Rating Decision 2-5-68 a.pdf

Rating Decision 2-5-68 page 2.pdf

[bm6546]

Wings,

You had asked me if the Metoprolol was prescribed specifically for my SC PAT, or another related heart condition? The answer is yes, the Metoprolol was specifically prescribed for me back in 2008 for my PAT. (see my previous post where I posted this info).

If it was for the PAT, under the old diagnostic code, need for continuous medication is assigned a 30% rating. Where would I find the diagnostice code for this?

Thanks,

Brian