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 

  • homepage-banner-2024.png

  • donate-be-a-hero.png

  • 0

Was Young And Dumb But Finally Caught On

Rate this question



I have been trying to get what is deserved, for compensation from the va. I would like some opinions on a claim submitted in 1995. A brief description of the claim is I was working under a truck, and an object like a bolt, or rock, or something fell in my eye, and abrasioned cornea was the result. I went on sick call, got ointment and a patch, and wore it abt a week. since the abrasion, I have had several occasions of dry eye, and given eye drops. I learned that 10 percent compensation is appropriate for residuals of corneal abrasion. I plan to file a CUE claim, back to 1995 based on this denial letter. Plz pay close attention to the very first line. They acknowledge in SERVICE medical records, indicated I had suffered a corneal abrasion, then they changed the subject, and distracted to my other, eye, then finally at the end of the denial , stated my injury was not service connected. THE FIRST SENTENCE THE TYPED SAID IT HAPPENED IN SERVICE. !!

Here it is.

Service medical records from March 1990 thru aug 1995 reveal a one time irritation of your left eye. when you had a dust particle enter your eye while working under a vehicle. ( for the record, the rater said it was a dust particle, my medical record states it was an object. rater decided to use particle, to make it sound like a minor injury).

Your eye was irrigated well.The eye exam showed a corneal abrasion with use of an antibiotic and eye patch for 24 hrs.

there were no further complaints of the left eye.

There are no medical records showing an eye disability since discharge. In recent Va outpatient records on sept of 2004 you were found to have a retinal detachment in the right eye. The acute injury of the left eye in service is not related to the current diagnosis of the right eye. (see how the rater tries to distract from the subject at hand), ?

Service connection may be granted for a disability which began in military service or was caused by some event or experience in service.

Service connection for eye condition is denied since this condition neither occurred in nor was caused by service.

I filed for my left eye, not my right, why they even mentioned my right eye, is ridiculous to me. My right eye was injured before I ever joined the service.

Edited by 63SIERRA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Recommended Posts

Thank you , I have recent documentation from the va eye doc of prescription for dryness of eye, so hopefully that is enough. Theres not alot they can do after a corneal abrasion, so its left alone as far as I can tell. The va tries to make the veteran feel like everything that happened to them in service is minor and because you did not need to go on sick call for years after, it doesnt count, and that is not the case. I have several contentions where they even changed diagnosis, to suit thier case and deny my claim. That is a trick they like play.

For instance, after kidney surgery and removal, I applied for comp for the 13 inch scar that was left. In thier denial letter, they described the scar a .01 mm long, and superficial. SUPER FICIAL.. The scar is abt as deep as it gets. and I looked up; medical terms for scars. NOWHERE in medical history, current or present, by and medical jargon are scars described as superficial. there are 4 types., none are superficial/ .. Thier game is, that superficial sounds very minor, like a scratch. I would bet if the RO had an operation and had a deep 13 inch long scar,where 2 entire organs were removed, (kidney and adrenal gland) , they would not describe it a a little superficial scar.

Time after time, on legitimate, and evidence backed claims they have denied me, the va uses this little trick, of word substitution, and downplay, and even diagnosis substitutions, to deny me.

Edited by 63SIERRA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also look at the wording in the first sentence of thier denial letter, its says " one time irritation"/........ it was an injury! , and they time and time again, reword the claims, to downplay the severity. They try to paint a picture, to make it seem like it was nothing. The examining doctor diagnosed it as an injury,. what right does the RO have, to change that, and call it an irritation. This is the health and well being and future of a human being at stake here., not the description of an old car your describing.

I was a hardcore, highly dedicated, highly motivated soldier that peed fire and ate nails for breakfast. I made corporal in 2 years, and SGT in a little less than 3. Thats after the promotions board mis added my points, and I was delayed. I went to desert storm, and did my job, in that toxic enviorment, and never complained, I did my job, I withheld my end of the deal. Now, years later, the things that I went thru in the army, are taking thier toll, and I have to argue lies that the VA is creating, to try and get whats lawfully and rightfully mine., its really sad. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, if I can, but its not mistakes its flat out deception and willful intent to deny at all costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a veteran is caught lying are fabricating evidence he or she can be prosecuted, but I guess its just everyday business as usual at the waco va rating office. They do it on a regular basis and nobody questions them. I encourage anyone who has claims, to CAREFULLY compare the wording used by the raters in your claims, against the actual diagnosis. I would bet many will see a pattern of wording that downplays the claim.

I recall an old sanford and son episode where Fred was involved in a car accident. He went see a lawyer, and they told him, Fred, they didnt run into the back of your truck, , they SLAMMED into the back of you. This is the tactic they use. I think if a person told them they fell out of an airplane on active duty, and broke thier leg, they would say they got out of the airplane and sprained thier leg. Its always minor.

Edited by 63SIERRA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have been doing it for years, in 1988 they told me I had a "bone condition" that was 0% disabling. 18 years later when filing for an increase to get the treatment that was promised, but refused when I requested it, I find out they had definatively diagnosed arthritis in my T spine. Why don't you tell a 22 year old he has arthritis and that it is 0% disabling? Becasue a 22 year old will say that's an old persons disease they must have really screwed me up and they will appeal. If they appeal you will end up looking at the other 2 segments of the spine and when those xrays show arthritic changes you have to pay compensation. You tell that dumb kid he has a bone condition but its not disabling and if you ever need medical care for it they will take care of it, and he goes away thinking he won!

I am beginning to think that at a military funeral when they say on behalf of a grateful nation, the nation is only grateful because they won't have to pay compensation!

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
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use