Footnote One Nehmer (A0)

[Berta]

Someone asked and we might well need to bump this stuff up if new AOs are added to the presumptive list....and if they continue to apply to Footnote one.

 

[Berta]

Probably thread is too long for many here to read:  so I copied that part of his email to me:

Rick Spataro, Head Nehmer lawyer of NVLSP, explained Footnote One to me this way in email as soon as the Regulations were being prepared for the 3 new AO presumptives in 2010:

 

“As for your second question, if the VA should have coded IHD in a rating decision, the claim that resulted in the rating decision could be considered a claim for benefits for IHD under footnote 1 of the Final Stipulation and Order in Nehmer. It basically depends on the timing of the claim, rating decision, and evidence received while the claim was pending. It may also depend on the rules in the Manual M21-1 regarding coding that were in effect at the time of the claim.

Typically, though, the following example would be accurate: A veteran filed a claim for SC for a low back disability on May 1, 1990. The VA obtained medical evidence showing a diagnosis of IHD in the development of that claim. The VA issued a rating decision on April 1, 1991, but does not code IHD (list IHD as “NSC” on the code sheet of the rating decision). Under footnote 1, since the condition should have been coded in the April 1, 1991 decision, the May 1, 1990 claim should be considered a claim for SC for IHD under Nehmer. “

As I mentioned here before I was a Footnote One Nehmer claimant.

VA "SHOULD have" coded my husband's IHD but didn't because they malpracticed on it.

The medical evidence I produced gave the claim a favorable EED of 1988, for AO IHD.

In Most cases however under Nehmer II most vets had one of the new presumptives listed in past rating decisions, with a diagnostic code, rating and a NSC, instead of SC which is what a successful AO claim produced as SC, under Footnote One Nehmer, if they had a now presumptive AO disability per Nehmer II.

I stress Nehmer II, of 2010, because it changed Nehmer 1.

Footnote One is the most important part of Nehmer II. Next to the three presumptives VA added in 2010.

 

 

 

Edited April 29, 2016 by Berta

[Victor Ray]

On April 29, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Berta said:

Probably thread is too long for many here to read:  so I copied that part of his email to me:

Rick Spataro, Head Nehmer lawyer of NVLSP, explained Footnote One to me this way in email as soon as the Regulations were being prepared for the 3 new AO presumptives in 2010:

 

“As for your second question, if the VA should have coded IHD in a rating decision, the claim that resulted in the rating decision could be considered a claim for benefits for IHD under footnote 1 of the Final Stipulation and Order in Nehmer. It basically depends on the timing of the claim, rating decision, and evidence received while the claim was pending. It may also depend on the rules in the Manual M21-1 regarding coding that were in effect at the time of the claim.

Typically, though, the following example would be accurate: A veteran filed a claim for SC for a low back disability on May 1, 1990. The VA obtained medical evidence showing a diagnosis of IHD in the development of that claim. The VA issued a rating decision on April 1, 1991, but does not code IHD (list IHD as “NSC” on the code sheet of the rating decision). Under footnote 1, since the condition should have been coded in the April 1, 1991 decision, the May 1, 1990 claim should be considered a claim for SC for IHD under Nehmer. “

As I mentioned here before I was a Footnote One Nehmer claimant.

VA "SHOULD have" coded my husband's IHD but didn't because they malpracticed on it.

The medical evidence I produced gave the claim a favorable EED of 1988, for AO IHD.

In Most cases however under Nehmer II most vets had one of the new presumptives listed in past rating decisions, with a diagnostic code, rating and a NSC, instead of SC which is what a successful AO claim produced as SC, under Footnote One Nehmer, if they had a now presumptive AO disability per Nehmer II.

I stress Nehmer II, of 2010, because it changed Nehmer 1.

Footnote One is the most important part of Nehmer II. Next to the three presumptives VA added in 2010.

 

IN other words, they with held the fact that they knew your husband was worse than they let on? Berta, the VA should have given me a fair and impartial physical. They hired a dermatologist, a fee based dermatologist. He also told me my lungs were all spotty. It is documented that I had respiratory issues on active duty, and was discharged with on going illnesses.

that can not be any clearer! I was to be discharged, but they changed the orders, sent me 800 miles away for pcs, and a joke of another medical board. I was intimidated, had no council, did not know why I was even there, but was hinted at getting kicked out of the Army. 

I love our country, but I despise the corruption. I was exposed to something that ruined my life. I was lied to, never correctly medically treated, denied access to all my treatment records, and every regulation violated.

all of my claims are simply "Denied: NSC" (except for those two mentioned), even though they were acquired in the service, while on duty, and documented. I was in the hospital a month and that is a fact, not a presumption! Most men claiming exposure were never treated for anything, let alone being hospitalized and evacuated out for it. How is it that I was given a permanent record of permanent damage to my entire system, and every claim denied, even though it is documented as in the line of duty? How is that possible?

to this day it is unspecified what caused my skin disease. It is unknown, but I am not given the benefit of the doubt. Why were none of my conditions coded? I had heart damage in May 1971, skin diseases too. Are none of those presumptive conditions not related to skin disease? None of the medical officers investigated why I had so many issues and were any of them connected to my conditions that caused my hospitalization for a month and continuous health decline. Not one. They treated me for everything under the sun, but the VA is hiding most of the records still.

 

On April 29, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Berta said:

Probably thread is too long for many here to read:  so I copied that part of his email to me:

Rick Spataro, Head Nehmer lawyer of NVLSP, explained Footnote One to me this way in email as soon as the Regulations were being prepared for the 3 new AO presumptives in 2010:

 

“As for your second question, if the VA should have coded IHD in a rating decision, the claim that resulted in the rating decision could be considered a claim for benefits for IHD under footnote 1 of the Final Stipulation and Order in Nehmer. It basically depends on the timing of the claim, rating decision, and evidence received while the claim was pending. It may also depend on the rules in the Manual M21-1 regarding coding that were in effect at the time of the claim.

Typically, though, the following example would be accurate: A veteran filed a claim for SC for a low back disability on May 1, 1990. The VA obtained medical evidence showing a diagnosis of IHD in the development of that claim. The VA issued a rating decision on April 1, 1991, but does not code IHD (list IHD as “NSC” on the code sheet of the rating decision). Under footnote 1, since the condition should have been coded in the April 1, 1991 decision, the May 1, 1990 claim should be considered a claim for SC for IHD under Nehmer. “

As I mentioned here before I was a Footnote One Nehmer claimant.

VA "SHOULD have" coded my husband's IHD but didn't because they malpracticed on it.

The medical evidence I produced gave the claim a favorable EED of 1988, for AO IHD.

In Most cases however under Nehmer II most vets had one of the new presumptives listed in past rating decisions, with a diagnostic code, rating and a NSC, instead of SC which is what a successful AO claim produced as SC, under Footnote One Nehmer, if they had a now presumptive AO disability per Nehmer II.

I stress Nehmer II, of 2010, because it changed Nehmer 1.

Footnote One is the most important part of Nehmer II. Next to the three presumptives VA added in 2010.

 

 

 

 

 

 

On April 29, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Berta said:

Probably thread is too long for many here to read:  so I copied that part of his email to me:

Rick Spataro, Head Nehmer lawyer of NVLSP, explained Footnote One to me this way in email as soon as the Regulations were being prepared for the 3 new AO presumptives in 2010:

 

“As for your second question, if the VA should have coded IHD in a rating decision, the claim that resulted in the rating decision could be considered a claim for benefits for IHD under footnote 1 of the Final Stipulation and Order in Nehmer. It basically depends on the timing of the claim, rating decision, and evidence received while the claim was pending. It may also depend on the rules in the Manual M21-1 regarding coding that were in effect at the time of the claim.

Typically, though, the following example would be accurate: A veteran filed a claim for SC for a low back disability on May 1, 1990. The VA obtained medical evidence showing a diagnosis of IHD in the development of that claim. The VA issued a rating decision on April 1, 1991, but does not code IHD (list IHD as “NSC” on the code sheet of the rating decision). Under footnote 1, since the condition should have been coded in the April 1, 1991 decision, the May 1, 1990 claim should be considered a claim for SC for IHD under Nehmer. “

As I mentioned here before I was a Footnote One Nehmer claimant.

VA "SHOULD have" coded my husband's IHD but didn't because they malpracticed on it.

The medical evidence I produced gave the claim a favorable EED of 1988, for AO IHD.

In Most cases however under Nehmer II most vets had one of the new presumptives listed in past rating decisions, with a diagnostic code, rating and a NSC, instead of SC which is what a successful AO claim produced as SC, under Footnote One Nehmer, if they had a now presumptive AO disability per Nehmer II.

I stress Nehmer II, of 2010, because it changed Nehmer 1.

Footnote One is the most important part of Nehmer II. Next to the three presumptives VA added in 2010.

 

 

 

 

 

In other words, you caught them hiding evidence that they knew had affected your husband.

that

 

 

 

[Victor Ray]

38 CFR 3.307 (a)(2) is thrown out the window. They treated me for malaria, but just like described in all medical journals, when a victim is already infected, they "will have a reaction to chloroquine". The VA is denying every reason for me being hospitalized for a month.

i told them before I was even admitted as an inpatient that I was eaten alive by misquotes because I had no net the first night or two in the Delta. A month for a chloroquine reaction? Really? Who would believe that? An entire month? A few hours, even a day, but a month? No what!

sorry Berta, but it is still just a cover up, hiding the facts, and denying a large retro pay. That is all it has ever been. 

Whem my claim was denied, they said Agent Orange "DID NO DAMAGE", and there was "THERE IS NO CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP YET ESTABLISHED///stop there. "Yet established". My claim was denied because they knew in 1968 that the diseases in the Delta were rampant, to the point it was affecting military operations. So, in my denial they did not list a single presumptive condition that is now law. Not one. Nothing was coded. 

Time to lawyer up it seems. The VA is wrong, and every last cent I have will be spent proving it, it looks like. Time for the media!