Bva With Remand To Amc

[jeeperrs]

I am new and posted much of what I am copy/pasting in another forum. However, I did not get much of a reply on that forum and thought I would try here. I will try to be as clear as I can, feel free to ask questions.

I will try to make this short and simple. I was discharged in 2003 for Supraventricular tachycardia. I found out after leaving the Army that they damaged my AV node and they took someone else's heart monitor and put my name on it (documented by VA cardiologist). The problem is that by putting my name on the other monitor and not my monitor, I received a 10% and not 30% rating in 2003. I have been fighting this for many years once a VA cardiologist pointed out the issue. I had a BVA hearing 2 years ago and just received my remand decision. I stressed the importance of the monitor that was miss identified and had a VA cardiologist document in 2009 that the heart monitor from 2003 was not my monitor and someone else's monitor. The judges remand said that I had to get current evidence, as that was too old of evidence for the increase in rating (she didn't once mention how I had false labs placed in my chart). This is my only issue that I have been fighting and I will post my timeline and then my questions. I have followed this board for 2 years but I can't seem to find an answer to this question, so I joined and am now posting.

Timeline (because I searched timelines all the time):

03/31/2009

Local VA Office Decision

RO

11/09/2009

Notice of Disagreement (NOD)

RO

11/16/2009

Appeal Pending

RO

03/17/2010

Statement of the Case (SOC)

RO

04/09/2010

Substantive Appeal (Form 9)

RO

01/11/2011

Supplemental Statement(s) of the Case (SSOC)

RO

07/27/2011

Certification of Appeal

RO

12/29/2011

Received by BVA

BVA

12/29/2011

Administrative Case Processing

BVA

10/15/2013

With VLJ

BVA

10/15/2013

With VLJ

BVA

10/23/2013

With VLJ

BVA

11/18/2013

With VLJ

BVA

11/19/2013

Pending Dispatch

BVA

11/19/2013

Decision & Claims File Dispatch

AMC

11/21/2013

Decision & Claims File Dispatch

AMC

Since it is now at the AMC you can all understand that I am in a remand.

My letter:

The Issue: Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for supraventricular tachycardia.

The introduction states:

This matter comes before the BVA on appeal from March 2009 rating decision issued by the VA RO in Muskogee, OK.

They had a quick review of my hearing and additional evidence

This paragraph was in bold and one of my questions (I was never seeking a secondary issue):

The issue of entitlement to service connection for degenerative mitral valve disease, to include as secondary to service-connected supraventricular tachycardia, has been raised by the record, but has not been adjudicated by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). Therefore, the board does not have jurisdiction over it, and it is referred to the AOJ for appropriate action.

The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the AMC in Washington DC.

Questions:

1) Can I not do anything about them discharging me under false laboratory findings, as I have a VA cardiologist and private cardiologist that says that is not my heart monitor?

2) I did not ask for the mitral valve to be a secondary condition but additional evidence to the chronic supra ventricular tachycardia. Are they starting their own claim to make this a secondary issue? What date do they use, my appeal or the order date?

3) They want evidence between the time I filed the appeal (when I found out about the errors in my medical records) but also said in the remand that I am to have an examination. The issue is that I had way more recorded episodes when I left the army than they want to use. However, the VA has agreed to count 4 recorded episodes but I need 5 recorded episodes to get the increase I am seeking. The examination criteria says "It is left to the examiner's professional judgment whether the veteran needs to be monitored by ECG or Holger monitor to satisfactorily complete this examination." but the requirements the BVA stated earlier said I had to have 5 recorded episodes. Should I allow the doctor to submit an opinion or require the doctor to put a 30 day holter monitor on me? I can get the needed recordings if they put a 30 day monitor on me.

4) Should I get a lawyer at this point? I have use VFW thus far.

Thank you for any feedback. I will probably think of more questions but these are the big four.

This was what I posted after talking to my VSO......

I finally got my VSO to return my call (they are 3 hours away making a day drive impossible with work). He suggested I fill out a DD form 149 and have the board review the MEB discharge and change my discharge from 10% to 30%.

As far as the secondary issue goes, he said the AMC will review the mitral valve and make a decision as secondary issue to the SVT. If they deny it, the BVA judge can then make a final ruling. I was told that it should most likely be approved because the judge implied that she felt it was raised by the record in her remand. That was promising news as I was getting frustrated.

I have not received anything from the AMC as of yet. I hope this doesn't take another 2 years for a blatant error the RO refuses to acknowledge.

Any additional comments will be appreciated.

[jeeperrs]

The BVA VLJ just made another decision yesterday. I won't receive the packet until this coming week but I am pretty sure the judge remanded the claim for a second time, as it is going back to the AMC. My guess is that the judge opened my previous claims for increase due to the new evidence and is giving the RO a chance to correct the effective date. I am not upset about this remand as it is keeping my file alive (plus I did get most of my backpay already). I will keep this thread updated, as my claim seems to still be happening. :)

[jeeperrs]

The VLJ remanded my file and stated that my effective date will be when I last filed my appeal, which is Jan 2009. The judge also stated that if I wish to file a form 9 to appeal my effective date back to the time I left the Army the file would immediately be returned to the BVA. I find this to be very good. I won't have to start all over and my docket number won't change. I think the judge knows I deserve the earlier effective date but that was not my initial appeal and she can't rule on that yet. Now that I have the rating I was seeking, I can appeal the effective date and it will go back to my VLJ. I am very pleased.

[jeeperrs]

I received the order from the BVA today. There were two important issues discussed.

1. Entitlement to an increased rating for SVT in excess of 10 percent, from Jan 26, 2009, to Sep 23, 2009

2. Entitlement to an earlier effective date for an award of 30% rating for SVT.

The judge really seemed to stress bring up the overwhelming evidence that is in my favor as she wrote her Reasons and Bases for Findings and Conclusions. Her order said:

"A 30 percent rating for supraventricular tachycardia is shown to be warranted from the date of the Veteran's claim on Jan 26, 2009. To this extent the appeal is granted, subject to the controlling regulations governing the payment of monitory benefits."

This order was big because the RO dated my initial award for September 2009 and the judge overruled them and said that it will be dated to Jan 2009. I believe her order supports her remand and what she expects the RO to do during the remand. So, this is the new remand:

"Regarding the matter of an earlier effective date for an award of 30 percent rating for supraventricular tachycardia, the appellate brief submitted by the Veteran's representative included language that may be taken as a notice of disagreement with the effective date of the award. As a consequence, he has sought to appel the assignment of the effective date, which is Jan 26, 2009, as a result of action taken by the Board herein. To date, the Veteran has not received a Statement of the Cose related to this issue, so this claim must be remanded for compliance with Manlincon v. West.

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action. The veteran must be provided an SOC on the issue of an effective date earlier than January 26, 2009, for the award of 30 percent rating for supraventricular tachycardia. If and only if the Veteran files a timely substantive appeal, should this issue be returned to the Board."

Since the judge already gave an earlier effective date once, I think she will support the fact that my medical records were compromised while on active duty and that I should have always been rated at 30 percent. I am thankful she didn't just close this out and send me to the back of the line. At least I will get another back paycheck for a few more months, if not for a few more years. :)

Edited September 12, 2014 by jeeperrs

[bhoward422]

Figured I would post an update that states there is nothing to update. HA! I am still waiting on the official decision letter that goes with the new decision in the SSOC. No changes to my rating or pay have been made as of yet. Today is the one month anniversary of my SSOC from the AMC. LOL

just sitting here reading your progress on the remand well mine is similar now my case is up at the AMC just had my C&P Sept 9th 2014 just talked to my VSR he gave me his # directly to his desk and fax# he said he is moving my case forward and he said everything is up to date also I send him a copy of my SSDI benefit letter and a buddy statement, I hope this will help my case also I sent him a copy of my IMO result, just sharing some info:

[jeeperrs]

Since the judge remanded my case a second time, it took until the end of December for the regional office to issue an SOC explaining why they did not award prior to the award date. They received my form 9 on Jan 3. The RO still has not forwarded my case back to the BVA for the judge to issue her decision, as the remand order has been completed. The Oklahoma RO had been very good about moving my case in the remand. I know the RO made an error processing the remand, and I think that error is still causing it to go slow. Fingers crossed my case gets moved back to the BVA this year.

To clarify, this remand is only for a back pay, as the award was made last year. Regardless, it was a win for me. :)

Here is a link to the new remand:

http://www.va.gov/vetapp14/Files5/1440068.txt

Edited February 26, 2015 by jeeperrs

[SergeantQ]

Looks like this is an old post but if Seaman, Les or jeeperrs are still connected to the site - I'd like to get your thoughts about AMC... Like is this a good thing or bad thing? Mine just dispatched to AMC and I'm told a letter was sent to me today but i'm soooo scared this may mean NO. What is your opinion about the AMC?