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]

"""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.

THAT IS A HUGE LEAP MY FRIEND.!!!

why didnt they say it like you said it?

Edited October 6, 2013 by 63SIERRA

[63SIERRA]

what is the va policy on raters inserting false information to deny claims? they clearly invented the dust particle story? why did they not state verbatem what the medical records said? the medical records said " object" ..

unless a person is in a cat 5 tornado, a dust particle isnt going to cause an eye injury.

Edited October 6, 2013 by 63SIERRA

[63SIERRA]

I didnt lie and say it was a alternator or starter that hit me, because Im not sure, what it was. I think it was a socket but not sure. why should they be able to decide what it was., they werent there. they werent the treating doc.

then the fact that they called it an irritation is another lie., it was an injury,

Edited October 6, 2013 by 63SIERRA

[63SIERRA]

I can hear it now ,, whats another word for getting shot in the head that doesnt sound so bad? Ohh just write,, veteran was grazed with a copper projectile, that cause some fluid to be released from his noggen. HES FINE., claim denied .. NEXT.

[63SIERRA]

These claim are way too important, and critical to the lives of soldiers who have fought . been injured, and died for this country for lay persons, to just be able to change the wording of the claims at will. when I say lay persons, Im describing people who are not liscensed medical doctors , which I would assume most if not all raters are not medical doctors/.

Edited October 6, 2013 by 63SIERRA

[63SIERRA]

maybe I can file a CUE claim based on the reasoning that the rater used the wrong information to decide my case. Either they will have to say they had the wrong information or changed the information is what im thinking , It would seem to me, they need to produce evidence that it was a dust particle that " irritated my eye" like they said it was, which im sure they do not have. Im going to take it to the wire with them, and see how it turns out. Either they can fabricate information or they cant . so im going to find out which it is. the first thing they will tell a veteran is hey, you cant self diagnose , your no doctor. Yet the raters can diagnose? and fabricate evidence ? thats exactly what happened in my claim. they diagnosed irritation, when it was an injury, and the fabricated the facts of the incident by saying it was a dust particle. Am I the only one who can see this?