Jump to content

Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts 
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules 

  • tbirds-va-claims-struggle (1).png

  • 01-2024-stay-online-donate-banner.png

     

  • 0

CUE, certainly a lot of errors

Rate this question


Palma114

Question

Hypertension was denied on 3/28/2016,

This is a remand from BVA 2014, where I requested an initial compensation of 10%, in which VARO had denied it in 2013, and only granted service connection rating only. 1/20/2016 I had a DRO hearing, and I explained everything I thought pretty good. I was diagnosed with hypertension on 10/16/2003, it was 161/76 on 7/2003 and was 212/103 on 10/16/2003 and was put on 

continuous bp medication every since to this present day, these are the bp readings on medications prior to filing claim: 161/76 7/2003, 212/103 10/16/2003, 180/86 12/02/2003, 161/88 12/03/2003, 160/91 12/19/2003, 165/96 2/20/2004, all of this information and evidence was put on my VA Form 9. As I reviewed the soc in the evidence section there were

nothing mentioned of my VA Form 9, and I noticed there is a lot of items listed of another claim that I have pending which is separate, but nothing of my NOD or  VA Form 9. So I read her decision:    Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for hypertension remains denied.

Reasons and Bases:

Service connection for hypertension has been established as directly related to military service.

During your personal hearing, you stated that you should receive a compensable rating of 10 percent for hypertension. You reported having elevated BPR's which meet the criteria for a 10 percent evaluation.

The cited evidence was reviewed and considered. Your VA Medical Center treatment reports show a history of your bp readings since the issuance of the cited SOC. Your BPR on Feb 17, 2015 was 127/71, Your BPR on March 26, 2015 was 125/80. On Oct 9, 2015 BPR was 121/76. On Dec 18, 2015 BPR was 134/77. The evidence shows you have been prescribed medication for treatment of this condition.

Could somebody please tell me, what the hell is this DRO talking about. Didn't even bother reading the M21-1 III iv SecE or my VA Form 9. As I read her decisions more, it appears to me that she has the service connection granted date of 5/2013 confused with, when I was actually diagnosed, which was 10/16/2003 and not understanding that this case was filed in 2004. This DRO has denied my case based on 2015 & 2016 BPR'S.

Edited by Palma114
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Tell a friend

    Love HadIt.com’s VA Disability Community Vets helping Vets since 1997? Tell a friend!
  • Recent Achievements

    • spazbototto earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Paul Gretza earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Troy Spurlock went up a rank
      Community Regular
    • KMac1181 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • jERRYMCK earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Our picks

    • These decisions have made a big impact on how VA disability claims are handled, giving veterans more chances to get benefits and clearing up important issues.

      Service Connection

      Frost v. Shulkin (2017)
      This case established that for secondary service connection claims, the primary service-connected disability does not need to be service-connected or diagnosed at the time the secondary condition is incurred 1. This allows veterans to potentially receive secondary service connection for conditions that developed before their primary condition was officially service-connected. 

      Saunders v. Wilkie (2018)
      The Federal Circuit ruled that pain alone, without an accompanying diagnosed condition, can constitute a disability for VA compensation purposes if it results in functional impairment 1. This overturned previous precedent that required an underlying pathology for pain to be considered a disability.

      Effective Dates

      Martinez v. McDonough (2023)
      This case dealt with the denial of an earlier effective date for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) 2. It addressed issues around the validity of appeal withdrawals and the consideration of cognitive impairment in such decisions.

      Rating Issues

      Continue Reading on HadIt.com
      • 0 replies
    • I met with a VSO today at my VA Hospital who was very knowledgeable and very helpful.  We decided I should submit a few new claims which we did.  He told me that he didn't need copies of my military records that showed my sick call notations related to any of the claims.  He said that the VA now has entire military medical record on file and would find the record(s) in their own file.  It seemed odd to me as my service dates back to  1981 and spans 34 years through my retirement in 2015.  It sure seemed to make more sense for me to give him copies of my military medical record pages that document the injuries as I'd already had them with me.  He didn't want my copies.  Anyone have any information on this.  Much thanks in advance.  
      • 4 replies
    • Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
      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
    • Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability rating 
    • 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.   
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use