Jump to content

Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts 
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules 

  • tbirds-va-claims-struggle (1).png

  • 01-2024-stay-online-donate-banner.png

     

  • 0

Rate this question


Guest terrysturgis

Question

Guest terrysturgis

I'm not an familiar with what would be considered IHD and I am helping a vet file his claims. Question is, is Congestive Heart Failure considered to be IHD and should he file a claim for CHF. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 7
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Top Posters For This Question

Recommended Posts

  • HadIt.com Elder

I am pretty sure CHF is not considered IHD. However, I think it really takes an autopsey to determine cause of death. If you die from a heart attack due to narrowing of blood vessels to the heart even if you have CHF then that might be IHD as cause of actual death. Of course if you have DMII and also CHF due to DMII then if you die from CHF that would be SC.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IHD for VA purposes is defined in this forum under a search.

I am starting to have problems with the new board and cannot copy and paste the link.

GRADUATE ! Nov 2nd 2007 American Military University !

When thousands of Americans faced annihilation in the 1800s Chief

Osceola's response to his people, the Seminoles, was

simply "They(the US Army)have guns, but so do we."

Sameo to us -They (VA) have 38 CFR ,38 USC, and M21-1- but so do we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope this helps.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp11/Files3/1124555.txt

Effective August 31, 2010, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs has determined that there is a presumptive positive association between exposure to herbicides and ischemic heart disease (IHD) (including, but not limited to, acute, subacute, and old myocardial infarction; atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease including coronary artery disease (including coronary spasm) and coronary bypass surgery; and stable, unstable and Prinzmetal's angina), under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). See 75 Fed. Reg. 53202 (Aug. 21, 2010).

Notably, the term IHD does not include hypertension or peripheral manifestations of arteriosclerosis such as peripheral vascular disease or stroke, or any other condition that does not qualify within the generally accepted medical definition of IHD. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) Note 3.

The Board initially notes that the appellant has not received notice of these potentially favorable changes in law. As such, the Board will remand this case to provide the appellant notice as required by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159.

The Board next notes that medical opinion is deemed necessary to decide this claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(d). In this respect, the Veteran held a diagnosis of coronary artery disease prior to his death which may be deemed of service-connected origin under the revised provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e), effective August 31, 2010. However, the Veteran was also diagnosed with long-standing hypertension which is specifically excluded as presumptively due to herbicide exposure. The Veteran's private medical records list both coronary artery disease and hypertension as risk factors for the Veteran's CVA.

As reflected in final rule comments, the definition of IHD is technical in nature. VA has defined IHD as "an inadequate supply of blood and oxygen to a portion of the myocardium; it typically occurs when there is an imbalance between myocardial oxygen supply and demand." 75 Fed. Reg. at 53204, citing Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine (Harrison's Online, Chapter 237, Ischemic Heart Disease, 2008). VA emphasized that the definition of IHD is limited to conditions which directly affect the myocardium (or muscles of the heart). Id.

Thus, on remand, the VA examiner is requested to determine whether the Veteran's service-connected disabilities materially or substantially contributed to the cause of his death, including clarification as to whether the Veteran suffered from ischemic heart disease.

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

1. Provide the appellant notice consistent with 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b) regarding the recently finalized regulations which added ischemic heart disease to the list of those diseases that may be presumed as due to herbicide exposure.

2. After providing the appellant an appropriate period of time to provide additional evidence and/or information, forward the claims folder to a cardiology specialist who is requested to provide opinion on the following questions:

a) whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater degree of probability) that the Veteran's service-connected disabilities of PTSD, bilateral hearing loss and coronary artery disease materially or substantially contributed to the cause of his death; and

b) whether the Veteran suffered from ischemic heart disease at the time of his death and, if so, whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater degree of probability) that ischemic heart disease materially or substantially contributed to the cause of his death?

A "contributory cause of death" is one which contributed substantially or materially to cause death, or aided or lent assistance to the production of death.

The term "as likely as not" does not mean within the realm of possibility. Rather, it means that the weight of medical evidence both for and against a conclusion is so evenly divided that it is medically sound to find in favor of causation as to find against causation.

For VA purposes, the term "ischemic heart disease" is defined as an inadequate supply of blood and oxygen to a portion of the myocardium; it typically occurs when there is an imbalance between myocardial oxygen supply and demand. The term ischemic heart disease does not include hypertension or peripheral manifestations of arteriosclerosis such as peripheral vascular disease or stroke, or any other condition that does not qualify within the generally accepted medical definition of ischemic heart disease.

A rationale must be provided for the opinion offered and, if the requested opinion cannot be provided on a medical or scientific basis and without invoking processes relating to guesses or judgment based upon mere conjecture, the reviewing physician should clearly and specifically so specify and explain why this is so.

3. Thereafter, readjudicate the claim. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the appellant and her representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and an appropriate period of time to respond.

The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).

This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2009).

Carlie passed away in November 2015 she is missed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest terrysturgis

Friends, I appreciate the info. What's bugging me is this vet's VA doctor says he does not have a claim and not to file after a two minute exam. I believe we will start with hearing loss, tinnitus, heart problems and he has had a rash since being in country. Time to get to work. He is scheduled for an Agent Orange exam. We will get a copy. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

Terry ask the Vet what caused his CHF?

Obviously he has had some heart related problems in the past. Has he ever had Angioplasty or stints put in. He needs a diagnosis of CAD. That would make the CHF an issue on th e severity of the heart disease.

I take this Vet is alive and kicking. I am confused about the death stuff in this topic.

Basse

A Veteran is a person who served this country. Treat them with respect.

A Disabled Veteran is a person who served this country and bears the scars of that service regardless of when or where they served.

Treat them with the upmost respect. I do. Rejection is not a sign of failure. Failure is not an option, Medical opinions and evidence wins claims. Trust in others is a virtue but you take the T out of Trust and you are left with Rust so be wise about who you are dealing with.

Link to comment
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


  • Tell a friend

    Love HadIt.com’s VA Disability Community Vets helping Vets since 1997? Tell a friend!
  • Recent Achievements

    • ArmyTom earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • kidva earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • kidva went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • kidva earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • dennis simpson earned a badge
      Collaborator
  • Our picks

    • These decisions have made a big impact on how VA disability claims are handled, giving veterans more chances to get benefits and clearing up important issues.

      Service Connection

      Frost v. Shulkin (2017)
      This case established that for secondary service connection claims, the primary service-connected disability does not need to be service-connected or diagnosed at the time the secondary condition is incurred 1. This allows veterans to potentially receive secondary service connection for conditions that developed before their primary condition was officially service-connected. 

      Saunders v. Wilkie (2018)
      The Federal Circuit ruled that pain alone, without an accompanying diagnosed condition, can constitute a disability for VA compensation purposes if it results in functional impairment 1. This overturned previous precedent that required an underlying pathology for pain to be considered a disability.

      Effective Dates

      Martinez v. McDonough (2023)
      This case dealt with the denial of an earlier effective date for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) 2. It addressed issues around the validity of appeal withdrawals and the consideration of cognitive impairment in such decisions.

      Rating Issues

      Continue Reading on HadIt.com
      • 0 replies
    • I met with a VSO today at my VA Hospital who was very knowledgeable and very helpful.  We decided I should submit a few new claims which we did.  He told me that he didn't need copies of my military records that showed my sick call notations related to any of the claims.  He said that the VA now has entire military medical record on file and would find the record(s) in their own file.  It seemed odd to me as my service dates back to  1981 and spans 34 years through my retirement in 2015.  It sure seemed to make more sense for me to give him copies of my military medical record pages that document the injuries as I'd already had them with me.  He didn't want my copies.  Anyone have any information on this.  Much thanks in advance.  
      • 4 replies
    • Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
      Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection. See COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL

      This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:

      Current Diagnosis.   (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)

      In-Service Event or Aggravation.
      Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”
      • 0 replies
    • Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability rating 
    • VA has gotten away with (mis) interpreting their  ambigious, , vague regulations, then enforcing them willy nilly never in Veterans favor.  

      They justify all this to congress by calling themselves a "pro claimant Veteran friendly organization" who grants the benefit of the doubt to Veterans.  

      This is not true, 

      Proof:  

          About 80-90 percent of Veterans are initially denied by VA, pushing us into a massive backlog of appeals, or worse, sending impoverished Veterans "to the homeless streets" because  when they cant work, they can not keep their home.  I was one of those Veterans who they denied for a bogus reason:  "Its been too long since military service".  This is bogus because its not one of the criteria for service connection, but simply made up by VA.  And, I was a homeless Vet, albeit a short time,  mostly due to the kindness of strangers and friends. 

          Hadit would not be necessary if, indeed, VA gave Veterans the benefit of the doubt, and processed our claims efficiently and paid us promptly.  The VA is broken. 

          A huge percentage (nearly 100 percent) of Veterans who do get 100 percent, do so only after lengthy appeals.  I have answered questions for thousands of Veterans, and can only name ONE person who got their benefits correct on the first Regional Office decision.  All of the rest of us pretty much had lengthy frustrating appeals, mostly having to appeal multiple multiple times like I did. 

          I wish I know how VA gets away with lying to congress about how "VA is a claimant friendly system, where the Veteran is given the benefit of the doubt".   Then how come so many Veterans are homeless, and how come 22 Veterans take their life each day?  Va likes to blame the Veterans, not their system.   
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use