Ao/herbicide 2010 Bbe Arrived Need Advice

[jcolwell]

My skills limit me to converting , please see attachment. So Why not grant 100 % for IHD and AICD retro to 2010. Did I fail the last 2 years of learning . Please advise all you heart people.

Confused . JC and wife Colwell IHD with AICD.pdf

[jcolwell]

I am not clear on the effective date either. They say in one place that you were diagnosed with IHD in 2001 and had an AICD placed in 2007. But later they said the law was changed August 31, 2010 and that you were diagnosed with the condition in August 2009. It says that since you did not ask for a review until October 2011 - which was more than one year after the change in law, that you are only granted benefits back to August 2010 - when the law changed. But it looks like you had a PENDING CLAIM when the law changed. The claim was filed April 2011 (within one year of the change in law). And the review you asked for (that they said was more than a year after the change in law) was actually a timely filed NOD on the October 2011 decision on a PENDING CLAIM. So I am not getting the part where they said you asked for a review a year past the change in law. Your claim was pending at that time.

Since they went back to the date the law changed (August 2010) though they said you filed your claim in April 2011, I am thinking you probably claimed for this condition before and was denied? And you reopened the claim in April 2011?

Filed Claim 4/2011. IHD with ICD , first time ever filed.

Denied 10/2011

Appealed to RO 2011 NOD

11/2012 VSO requested formal meeting with DRO ( did not know this was option)

9/2012 Filed for DM 2 presumptive with new stronger evidence for perimeter duty

4/2012 Met with DRO for interview with mention of 100% by VSO and reviewer, new evidence used

9/2013 DM2 approved 20% presumptive for Herbicide/AO Thailand,DM2 retro back to file date 10/2013 Appeal closed approved at 30% retro to 8/2010 which I think is the correct effective date for Thailand guys and per my 2 years studying this topic.

In reading the decision , they bounced around so much and I can see that they cut and pasted out of the orginal denial. I don't think the DRO wrote this up. I think once the DM became presumptive , I notified them and asked why IHD was also not presumptive. I think someone picked it up and said , look this is presumptive and sent out the letter.

Thanks for all comments. Patsy and JIm

[Computer Tech]

Phil, page 2 and 3 are reversed. As to the 1 Aug 2010 date they did the same thing with me and I filled my IHD claim in Nov 2010.

In the evidence the VA acknowledges that JC has an AICD but ignores it when it came time to rate, I think they probably rated JC under the 7005 code when they should have used 7011.

JC, I would follow Berta's advice.

Rick

[jcolwell]

Am I missing something, besides page 2 of your decision.?? They went back to 8/31/2010. I thought they should've maybe gone back to '09, the date of diagnosis or maybe a yr before.

As for the 100%, it is my feeling that once the AICD is implanted and working you are no longer 100%, because of the AICD. It's like having a blockage. Once the stent(s) are in there's no blockage and you are rated on ejection factor. If the AICD was implanted during that time period you would be entitled to 100% for two months or until it was stabilized. jmo

pr

thanks for helping. My understanding as a nurse is that my husband has Major IHD which results in unanticipated ventricular cardiac irregular beats that can cause unexpected death etc. He also has stents for circulations and has had the widow maker fixed , but the AICD becomes permanent in that the irregular beats can come anytime and condition never gets better , only worse. Hope this helps. They get tuneups ever 4-5 years but never get removed. thanks Patsy and JC

[jcolwell]

Thank everyone. Berta you made my husband laugh out loud. I refuse to go to the BVA as you said. I would like to see any sample cue you used and who to send to ASAP as this will be my days work on Monday. I already faxed RO in PHX about their screw up and wrote CUE across the title.

Thanks jc

[free_spirit_etc]

"Filed Claim 4/2011. IHD with ICD , first time ever filed.

...9/2013 DM2 approved 20% presumptive for Herbicide/AO Thailand,DM2 retro back to file date 10/2013 Appeal closed approved at 30% retro to 8/2010 which I think is the correct effective date for Thailand guys and per my 2 years studying this topic."

So there rhetoric about how you did not ask for a review until a year after the change is law had nothing whatsoever to do with the effective date of the claim.(Besides the fact that it wasn't even true).

Why didn't they just say "The law changed ___. You filed your claim within one year of the change in law. Your effective date ___, the date of the change in law." instead of writing it to sound like you were somehow "at fault" for your effective date....

Edited October 20, 2013 by free_spirit_etc

[jcolwell]

agree. Confusing ......like a teenager wrote it up. Maybe they did. JC