Was Young And Dumb But Finally Caught On

[63SIERRA]

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 September 12, 2013 by 63SIERRA

[free_spirit_etc]

63Sierra is getting ALL fired up.

[free_spirit_etc]

john999,

I am wishing you so much luck with yourCUE claim!

[harleyman]

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).

I agree, the examination should say "object", if that is what the record indicates.

Your eye was irrigated well.The eye exam showed a corneal abrasion with use of an antibiotic and eye patch for 24 hrs.- In the opinion of the VA a one time treatment for a condition without follow-up is considered acute injury, not a chronic condition. This is where they are getting you, by saying your eye injury was acute withut residual. (you are saying it was an injury which has developed into a condition of "dry eye").

there were no further complaints of the left eye.- for compensation purposes the VA is saying acute condtion

There are no medical records showing an eye disability since discharge.they are saying since your have no treatment records since the incident there is no "chronicity" of treatment

In recent Va outpatient records on sept of 2004 you were found to have a retinal detachment in the right eye. Anytime there are "paired" organs or "body parts" (two eyes, two ears, two knees, etc. you will find the VA examines both... mainly for a comparison, and also to doucment the opposite for future claims reference. For example you claim a right knee due to running but the left knee doesn't bother you. So the exam shows the left knee is painful and has restricted motion but the right knee is fine. Later you find the rigth knee is bothering you and you rememebr you hurt it in the motrpool when you slip and jammed it into a tool bench, but it onlyt bothered you once in a while. So you file a claim, and they deny the claim becuase when they examined your left anf right knee before the right knee was asymptomatic. They document pairs for comparison and future claims.- IMO

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), ? When they do their examinations, the examiner is asked by the VSR or RVSR to give his opinion about the specific claimed condition. Often times, and I suspect it happened in your case, the examiner was asked to make a determination , since there was a condition of the right eye is it realted to the condition of the left eye.

Sometimes the examiner will address issues that the Veteran hasn't claimed but the RVSR wants it addressed.

Service connection may be granted for a disability which began in military service or was caused by some event or experience in service. If you will post the entire opinion from the examiner I could tell more, I suspect the examiner stated you did not have any residual from the "event" in service or he stated the current complaint of "dry eye" is not related to the left eye abrasion.

Service connection for eye condition is denied since this condition neither occurred in nor was caused by service. And he covered the right eye as NSC, so that keeps a claim from happening in the future.

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.

You stated you believe you have "dry eye" as a residual of the abrasion caused from an object in your eye during service. I feel you will need an IMO from an opthamologist who will confirm the diagnosis of the "dry eye" and you will give his medical an opinion that links the dry eye to the object in the eye in service causing an abrasion to your current "dry eye condition". He needs to indicate your use of over-the -counter meds for the condition until you sought care in 2004, when the dry-eye worsened to the point OTCs no longer helped. With that type of evidence you can reopen your claim with new and material (N&M) evidence. It provides a history of an in service event, a current diagnosed condition, and a nexus (opinion) linking the two. That will then bring your claim to "equipoise" and when there are two conflicting opinions then the decision should favor the Veteran, as the Veterans statement of having the condition, and stating a history of getting OTCs meds for it, tips the scale. The Veteran is considered a "credible historian" and can offer a credible "lay" statement with regard to his claims. Therefore, that shoud move tip the scale to you for a grant of service connection.

Unfortunately without an IMO, this claim will not be granted. Doctor's do not like to contradict one another, and the VA doctor's are no exception to that, I don't think you will find a VA doctor to offer a differing opinion in this case. You will need to hire a doctor to provide an IMO. When you hire a IMO, the doctor isn't paid by VA, so he is more apt to be favorable to his "client/patient", you! rather than be worried about contradicting some VA examiner. It is not impossible to turn this around but it is going to be a cost to get the examination and an eye DBQ done.- IMO, Hope this helps. I understand your frustration.

Edited October 6, 2013 by harleyman

[63SIERRA]

thanks for the reply. The thing is I do have post service medical record where I was prescribed eye drops, and I have been buying them ever since because the eye doctor told me I had dry eyes.. The va never mentioned the dry eye condition at all . (not helping thier case).. Also I wear glasses and mt vision has progessively gotten worse (no mention of this by the va , yet it is in my records).

and if you look at the big picture, my eye was INJURED in service, with any injury comes residuals, so the way the va plays thier song and dance . and jukes and jives doesnt impress me, there is scar tissue, possibility of early eye disease.increases sensitivity to light, (doc prescribes me tinted glasses ), ect associated with an eye injury,so im not buying what they are selling., I know your just telling me how they look at it so dont take offense. thanks for what you do.

Edited October 6, 2013 by 63SIERRA

[63SIERRA]

also what about the fact that they state that the eye condition neither occured or was aggravated in service. ? just another mistake, just like when they claimed dust particle instead of object? is it ok that they just keep putting wrong information ? including the fact that they didnt research my med records and list my dry eye condition, to me, that is 3 major mistakes they made on my claim.

if I fabricate service records to say that it WAS in service injury and it wasnt, do you think a badge and gun would not come knocking, YET VA does it all the time? is something wrong with this picture?

Edited October 6, 2013 by 63SIERRA

[63SIERRA]

""Service connection for eye condition is denied since this condition neither occurred in nor was caused by service. And he covered the right eye as NSC, so that keeps a claim from happening in the future."""

I dont understand this.. my eye condition happened in service, with documentation??? va even mentions it in the claim denial .

THIS IS WHAT THEY WROTE

"""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""""

Edited October 6, 2013 by 63SIERRA