AUDIO FROM CVAC

[paulcolrain]

WHY WOULD A JUSTICE OF THE CVAC ASK A QUESTION LIKE THIS TO VETERAN ATTORNEY<<<<<<<<<<< SO, IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS A BURDEN OF PROOF TO PROVE THAT A VETERAN IS HEALTHY UPON SERVICE AND SOMEHOW ALSO THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW THAT THE SAME VETERAN IS UN-HEALTHY LEAVING SERVICE???? WOW,, THAT JUSTICE DID ASK THAT QUESTION.... AND ANYONE WHO FOLLOWS VETERANS LAW KNOWS THAT YES, THEY DO HAVE THAT BURDEN AND THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ASKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[paulcolrain]

WHY IS THIS NOT LETTING ME ATACH THE MEDIA FILE?

Dewberry_2015-7015.mp3

[Berta]

I took notes as I listened to this:

 

Initial point of lawyer :Failed to apply presumption of soundness…BVA agreed, then BVA denied –no evidence in record that the veteran had heart disease in or after separation from service, or before service.

 

Not clear that any potential  manifested outcome had occurred

1968 condition at discharge does not show cardiomegaly.

Mil record suggests cardiomegaly, and also LVH , noted in VA medical record.But

No additional medical testing at that time.

2 conflicting C & Ps

I agree with the judge who said the presumption of soundness does not apply to this case.

In my opinion it is an irrelevant point in this case because the crux of the CUE claim regards a manifested altered outcome, which the medical evidence they (VA) had did not support.

I do not believe LVH is even ratable as it is a symptom

Who was the lawyer?

The appeal was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction on the facts.

I don’t understand the lawyer’s position…..he offered no proof that the veteran was not in sound health prior to entrance. He also offered no documented proof of the veteran’s medical status regarding his heart after discharge until the re-open

1994 re open N & M rating, 2003 IMO from doctor who treated him in late 90s and confirmed this was cardiomegaly and could have arose from service.

He re-opened and he got a VA rating with a 1994 EED for the heart disease.

Still I heard no evidence from 1968 to 1994 re- open, that there was a manifested and altered outcome from the original decision they filed CUE on.

That is, there was no rating at 10% or more for the heart disease in the very first decision.

No SC rating, no SC comp warranted, thus , no manifested altered outcome.

It is an interesting case but CUE rests on documented medical facts.

I hope others listen to the audio and opine here too.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2015 by Berta

[paulcolrain]

I took notes as I listened to this:

 

 

The appeal was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction on the facts.

I don’t understand the lawyer’s position…..he offered no proof that the veteran was not in sound health prior to entrance. He also offered no documented proof of the veteran’s medical status regarding his heart after discharge until the re-open

 

 

 

 

i agree with you berta here with this comment. its my understanding that once the government agreed that he was sound at entrance than the burden shifts back to government.