Cue Caught By Regional Office

[lugnut]

I got a letter from Togus Office (Maine) stating "it is proposed to sever service connection for bilateral hearing loss due to a clear and unmistakeable error." I was SC in April 2012 with back pay to April 2010, Tinnitus was deffered. I was issued hearing aides in OCT 2011 by VHA. I don't want to write the whole story down as it is LONG, but basically they are saying: There are no audiometric findings in your service treatment records that meet the requirements of 38 CFR 3.385. The VA examiner stated that tests done at entrance and separation deny any shift in hearing. Hearing loss due to noise exposure is non-progressive.(?) There is no medical link between your loss and military service.

Our Rating Decision granted SC for bilateral HL The evaluation for hearing loss is based on objective testing.

This Decision was clearly and unmistakenly made in error, as the evidence of record has not shown a link between your military service and your current bilateral hearing loss. Therefor we are proposing to sever SC for hearing. You will have 60 days to submit evidence if you do not agree with this proposal, etc..

Does anyone have any ideas?? I worked as a tank mechanic, 63C, most of the time, drove a M88 tank retriever, M113 APC, carried an M1911 .45 pistol, loudest gun in the world.All of my MOS's are on the list's of HIGH likelyhood of problyhood.

Thank you and thank for your service

lugnut AKA Buddy

[rdawg]

get an imo quick. it will provide the link (nexus) they are referring to.

[Berta]

And ask for a hearing too.

"Hearing loss due to noise exposure is non-progressive.(?)"

What quack came up with that idea?

If that was true the VA could reduce hundreds if not thousands of HL SC awards.

"There is no medical link between your loss and military service."

I guess the rater who proposed this reduction did not comprehend your MOS at all.

I would not only get the IMO to combat this, but also get a new audio test from a private audiologist and ,along with the written hearing request refer them to a new claim your have enclosed for a higher HL rating,if the private IMO doc can give enough medial rationale to warrant that.

The 10% to me seems way too low.

I hope you have copies of your SMRs to show the IMO doctor.

I never quite believe the VA's rendition on SMRs ,unless it is positive for the veteran.

I helped a vet whose SMRs , for 12 years ( BVA and CAVC twice each ) and 2 lawyers

were never thoroughly read by anyone, not even his vet rep or his CAVC lawyers.

I read them after his last denial (it took a lot of time- handwritten, lots of stuff I had to look up, etc, in only about 12 -14 records but still very difficult to interpret

but what he needed was in them.

I wrote up what I found and my lay medical opinion and rationale which he gae to his doctor and then

his private doctor read the SMRs good himself ,prepared a strong IMO and then VA awarded his claim. 12 years retro.

My interpretation of his SMRs were vastly different then what VA had come up with.

But this vet himself had not really studied his SMRs well himself and he could have succeeded on his claim far faster then 12 years if he had taken the time I did to really study them good.

The service nexus grew out of one word in his last BVA denial that was in his SMRs.

I had an additional enormous stack of his VA stuff to go through.

But NO ONE ever looked up that medical word in a medical dictionary until I did. Bingo- I knew immediately he would succeed.

He could have done that himself, however, and won much faster.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Berta