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

[63SIERRA]

THEN at the bottom of the denial letter

THIS IS WHAT THEY WROTE

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

are we tracking here???

[63SIERRA]

also with the wording in the claims, it is an old lawyers trick, they say false information for the jury to hear, but the judge strikes it from record. the thing is, the jury already heard the information, and it has an effect on the outcome, like it or not. The fact that they change the words to sound less than they are, put an impression in the persons mind who is reading it.

I would be that many people who would read the claim denial would think that I had a dust particle hit my eye, and it was nothing at all. The va accomplished its goal.

Why didnt they say a rock, or a socket, or a pebble, ? its because dust particle sounds like something very minor. If you are trying to say they are not downplaying the claims with word play, your never going to convince me of that.

[harleyman]

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""""

What they are saying is: there is no residual to the injury of the eye while in service and the "dry eye" condition you are claiming is not related to the eye condition for which you were treated, In other words the examiners opinion is saying your current dry eye condition is not related to your in service eye abrasion. Therefore, dry eye neither incurred in nor was CAUSED BY the documented one time eye irritation while in service.

So you need an IMO that will say the "dry eye" condition is a residual of the inservice abrasion. Thus, countering the VA examiners opinion. - I hope this is a little better explanation.- H

[63SIERRA]

yes but at the bottom of the denial letter they contradict themselves by saying the injury did not happen in service.

[63SIERRA]

first they acknowledge it happened in service, they write thier denial then say it never happened in service . it cant be both ways,

[63SIERRA]

Its like they are saying.. you worked at my company in 1993 to 95. while working at our company a pebble hit you in the eye and scratched your cornea.

we have no other comnplaints of your eye condition, because we failed to assist you and look in your medical records. there fore we wont compensate you.

Also the pebble never hit you in the eye while working for us.