Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules
.thumb.png.0b66d11060c658bf7aa45efe4372d3e7.png)
- 0
Announcements
-
Tell a friend
-
Recent Achievements
-
-
Our picks
-
Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
Tbird posted a record in VA Claims and Benefits Information,
Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection. See COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL
This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:
Current Diagnosis. (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)
In-Service Event or Aggravation.
Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”-
- 0 replies
Picked By
Tbird, -
-
Post in ICD Codes and SCT CODES?WHAT THEY MEAN?
Timothy cawthorn posted an answer to a question,
Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability rating
Picked By
yellowrose, -
-
Post in Chevron Deference overruled by Supreme Court
broncovet posted a post in a topic,
VA has gotten away with (mis) interpreting their ambigious, , vague regulations, then enforcing them willy nilly never in Veterans favor.
They justify all this to congress by calling themselves a "pro claimant Veteran friendly organization" who grants the benefit of the doubt to Veterans.
This is not true,
Proof:
About 80-90 percent of Veterans are initially denied by VA, pushing us into a massive backlog of appeals, or worse, sending impoverished Veterans "to the homeless streets" because when they cant work, they can not keep their home. I was one of those Veterans who they denied for a bogus reason: "Its been too long since military service". This is bogus because its not one of the criteria for service connection, but simply made up by VA. And, I was a homeless Vet, albeit a short time, mostly due to the kindness of strangers and friends.
Hadit would not be necessary if, indeed, VA gave Veterans the benefit of the doubt, and processed our claims efficiently and paid us promptly. The VA is broken.
A huge percentage (nearly 100 percent) of Veterans who do get 100 percent, do so only after lengthy appeals. I have answered questions for thousands of Veterans, and can only name ONE person who got their benefits correct on the first Regional Office decision. All of the rest of us pretty much had lengthy frustrating appeals, mostly having to appeal multiple multiple times like I did.
I wish I know how VA gets away with lying to congress about how "VA is a claimant friendly system, where the Veteran is given the benefit of the doubt". Then how come so many Veterans are homeless, and how come 22 Veterans take their life each day? Va likes to blame the Veterans, not their system.
Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Post in Re-embursement for non VA Medical care.
broncovet posted an answer to a question,
Welcome to hadit!
There are certain rules about community care reimbursement, and I have no idea if you met them or not. Try reading this:
https://www.va.gov/resources/getting-emergency-care-at-non-va-facilities/
However, (and I have no idea of knowing whether or not you would likely succeed) Im unsure of why you seem to be so adamant against getting an increase in disability compensation.
When I buy stuff, say at Kroger, or pay bills, I have never had anyone say, "Wait! Is this money from disability compensation, or did you earn it working at a regular job?" Not once. Thus, if you did get an increase, likely you would have no trouble paying this with the increase compensation.
However, there are many false rumors out there that suggest if you apply for an increase, the VA will reduce your benefits instead.
That rumor is false but I do hear people tell Veterans that a lot. There are strict rules VA has to reduce you and, NOT ONE of those rules have anything to do with applying for an increase.
Yes, the VA can reduce your benefits, but generally only when your condition has "actually improved" under ordinary conditions of life.
Unless you contacted the VA within 72 hours of your medical treatment, you may not be eligible for reimbursement, or at least that is how I read the link, I posted above. Here are SOME of the rules the VA must comply with in order to reduce your compensation benefits:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.344
Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Post in What is the DIC timeline?
broncovet posted an answer to a question,
Good question.
Maybe I can clear it up.
The spouse is eligible for DIC if you die of a SC condition OR any condition if you are P and T for 10 years or more. (my paraphrase).
More here:
Source:
https://www.va.gov/disability/dependency-indemnity-compensation/
NOTE: TO PROVE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL LIKELY REQUIRE AN AUTOPSY. This means if you die of a SC condtion, your spouse would need to do an autopsy to prove cause of death to be from a SC condtiond. If you were P and T for 10 full years, then the cause of death may not matter so much.
Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Question
jamescripps2
This claim was originally filed in 2003 and was denied several times, lost a few times, kicked around to various regional offices and eventually remanded for a C&P exam. I was asked to take a look in 2011 and I started working feverishly with the widow. There was a lot of evidence gathering in the face of the usual sea of naysayers but we never lost focus. It is very difficult for a Thailand veteran to win, much less the thought of a sole surviving widow signing on upon the death of the veteran and seeing the claim through to a win. Needless to say, the evidence needed to be overwhelming. I venture to say that this the very first win for a sole surviving spouse in a Thailand herbicide exposure claim. It is important to note that the veteran was not an MP nor was he a dog handler. When it is posted on the BVA list of prior decisions web site it is DOCKET NO. 09-17 560 and dated June 02, 2014.
It is such an honor for me to be able to work these kind of claims to a win. I expect that a 100% award will be awarded in the claim because the death of the veteran was the result of the now service connected chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
The following is an excerpt from an email that I received from the widow this afternoon.
It has been a long, emotional, and painful ordeal, but I did receive a letter today from the Board of Veteran’s Appeal that says – For accrued benefits purposes, service connection for chronic lymphocytic leukemia is granted.
I had James Cripps, a friend who has guided me, the first vet to win an AO claim stateside, who works daily with vets – read the decision tonight to re-assure me.
I am going to copy two paragraphs that I thought was so interesting and James also pointed it out:
An August 2007memorandum of the Compensation and Pension Service confirmed that herbicides such as Agent Orange were only applied in Thailand from April-September, 1964, 3 ½ years prior to the Veteran’s duty there. Moreover, the only application site in Thailand was the Pranburi Military Reservation, not U-Tapao. However, the memorandum determined that routine maintenance such as brush clearing, weed killing, and range management was conducted by the base civil engineer at U-Tapao, and that involved commercial herbicides applied by certified applicators. The memorandum notes that security police units and dog handlers were known to have walked the perimeters and therefore have a greater likelihood of exposure to commercial pesticides and herbicides.
Several letters were submitted by fellow-servicemen who served with the Veteran, or served at the same base in Thailand. These accounts endorsed the Veteran’s assertion that he was present at the perimeter of the base at U-Tapao. While the Veteran is not presumed to have been exposed to any herbicide based on his service, based on the Veteran’s assertions as corroborated by these statements, the Board finds that, it is at least likely as not that he was actually exposed to herbicides during his service.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
3
3
3
1
Popular Days
Jun 6
12
Jun 7
3
Jun 11
2
Top Posters For This Question
Berta 3 posts
jamescripps2 3 posts
Computer Tech 3 posts
Notorious Kelly 1 post
Popular Days
Jun 6 2014
12 posts
Jun 7 2014
3 posts
Jun 11 2014
2 posts
Popular Posts
jamescripps2
This claim was originally filed in 2003 and was denied several times, lost a few times, kicked around to various regional offices and eventually remanded for a C&P exam. I was asked to take a look
Chuck75
Kadena USAFB From Wikipedia In June 2013, the government of Japan discovered 22 barrels buried on former base property that tests showed had previously contained dioxins and herbicides. Tests on the
16 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now