Low balled on rating.

[jwesley]

Ok so the judge granted service connection for brugada syndrome with aicd implant.

It should have been rated at 100%, or am I wrong?

they rated it at 10%, so I had to file a notice of disagreement... now I can see myself waiting another 4-5 years for them to fix a very simple mistake?

Brugada's Syndrome with implanted automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (AICD)

10%

Service Connected

12/03/201

[Berta]

What diagnostic code did they use?

Can you scan and attach their Reasons and Basis here? and the Evidence list?

Cover C file # etc prior to scanning it.

 

[Vync]

3 hours ago, jwesley said:

Ok so the judge granted service connection for brugada syndrome with aicd implant.

It should have been rated at 100%, or am I wrong?

they rated it at 10%, so I had to file a notice of disagreement... now I can see myself waiting another 4-5 years for them to fix a very simple mistake?

Brugada's Syndrome with implanted automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (AICD)

10%

Service Connected

12/03/201

Well, let's take a look at the cardiac rating tables: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div5;node=38:1.0.1.1.5#se38.1.4_1104

Quote

7011   Ventricular arrhythmias (sustained):
For indefinite period from date of hospital admission for initial evaluation and medical therapy for a sustained ventricular arrhythmia, or; for indefinite period from date of hospital admission for ventricular aneurysmectomy, or; with an automatic implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (AICD) in place	100

and...

Quote

Note: Evaluate implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators (AICD's) under DC 7011.

In my opinion, I think you are correct, but Berta is the expert here.

The second quote I posted shows that the VA is supposed to always evaluate under DC 7011. I searched the entire cardiac rating tables and those were the only instances where AICD's are even mentioned.

Someone may have simply forgot to add the extra zero. I had the VA rater fail to read and transcribe numbers correctly in one of my ratings.

 

Edited July 8, 2016 by Vync

[Berta]

Vync, I might be an expert on DIC or AO and I did learn a lot about cardiology  when I pursued my claims-however, this is a condition which might also be called Right bundle branch blockage , or even other terms.

I am baffled by that rating too.

I spent a lot of time last night at the BVA and still found very little on this condition or how they should rate it.

I assume the scar from the implant was not ratable....but not sure....

But I agree with you as to the AICD factor . We had a vet here some time ago who also had a decision that was incorrect as to his AICD. I will try to find it.

PS:

I think everyone here, like you -Vync, is an Expert when it comes to trying to help veterans.We all have gathered so much knowledge from our own battles.

Hadit should be the VA training program for the whole VBA.

 

[Berta]

BINGO:

"

First to thank Berta and several of you for advice and support during the dark days of my claim. Briefly: VSO called this am to advise 100 % P and T for IHD with AICD. They are working on the math in DC. . With Berta help we filed a CUE in Oct 2013 since VA DRO did not address the AICD in the IHD claim.

The retro will go back to 8/2010. I was jet engine mechanic in Udorn 1970 and located my colonel who wrote letter to support my claim.

Berta , we used the CUE template that you shared so thank you. I am a RN and have been working on my husband claim for Thailand herbicide exposure since 4/2011. I still have a lot of work to do to get him approved for his secondary chronic renal disease and SC for GERD.

Regards Patsy and Jim "

http://community.hadit.com/topic/54343-thailand-claim-approved-100-herbicide-presumptive/

 

This was as I recall what I call a GCY claim ( Go CUE yourself VA ) filed within the appeal period.

I will have to look for more info on this claim and I think there might have been another one like it too here.

It would help if you can scan and attach the decision and the Diagnostic code they used ( and date of that decision) to see if this can be approached like JColwell's claim was....as a CUE within the appeal period.

 

 

 

[Berta]

This has more info....I think JColwell was a GCY CUE and this one is for a traditional CUE...

still, I will seek more info because I agree with VYNC that this rating is wrong.

 

 

[Vync]

2 hours ago, Berta said:

I think everyone here, like you -Vync, is an Expert when it comes to trying to help veterans.We all have gathered so much knowledge from our own battles.

Hadit should be the VA training program for the whole VBA.

Thank you Berta.

The VA rules and regulations are so convoluted and confusing that I have a feeling that this was a mere case of VARO rater inexperience. Some days I wish I was a programmer for the VA. Something as simple as data mining the C&P exam and/or DBQ check boxes and/or text would have found jwesley's AICD implant and flagged it for an accurate rating in a millisecond. Afterwards, it could be sent for human eyes QA to confirm. But the only problem is that this approach is that it would make too much sense. Instead, well-deserving veterans have to NOD the claim and wait. Yeah, the retro would be nice, but there are likely no consequences for the VARO rater who, in my opinion, violated due process laws.