Post a clear title like ‘Need help preparing PTSD claim’ or “VA med center won’t schedule my surgery”instead of ‘I have a question.
Knowledgeable people who don’t have time to read all posts may skip yours if your need isn’t clear in the title.
I don’t read all posts every login and will gravitate towards those I have more info on.
Use paragraphs instead of one massive, rambling introduction or story.
Again – You want to make it easy for others to help. If your question is buried in a monster paragraph, there are fewer who will investigate to dig it out.
Leading too:
Post straightforward questions and then post background information.
Examples:
Question A. I was previously denied for apnea – Should I refile a claim?
Adding Background information in your post will help members understand what information you are looking for so they can assist you in finding it.
Rephrase the question: I was diagnosed with apnea in service and received a CPAP machine, but the claim was denied in 2008. Should I refile?
Question B. I may have PTSD- how can I be sure?
See how the details below give us a better understanding of what you’re claiming.
Rephrase the question: I was involved in a traumatic incident on base in 1974 and have had nightmares ever since, but I did not go to mental health while enlisted. How can I get help?
This gives members a starting point to ask clarifying questions like “Can you post the Reasons for Denial of your claim?”
Note:
Your first posts on the board may be delayed before they appear as they are reviewed. This process does not take long.
Your first posts on the board may be delayed before they appear as they are reviewed. The review requirement will usually be removed by the 6th post. However, we reserve the right to keep anyone on moderator preview.
This process allows us to remove spam and other junk posts before hitting the board. We want to keep the focus on VA Claims, and this helps us do that.
Most Common VA Disabilities Claimed for Compensation:
You’ve just been rated 100% disabled by the Veterans Affairs. After the excitement of finally having the rating you deserve wears off, you start asking questions. One of the first questions that you might ask is this: It’s a legitimate question – rare is the Veteran that finds themselves sitting on the couch eating bon-bons …Continue reading
On 8/24/2016, VARO made a decision on my Chronic kidney disease claim. They granted me a 60% rating, on CKD stage 3, and Definite decrease in kidney function. I was initially at stage 4 CKD and sick, so they put me on several medications to get my numbers to come down, well after about 45 days it drop from stage 4 failure to moderate stage 3. So I initially filed my claim back in 2004, as all of this was occurring. So I just recently filed a NOD, which states I should have been granted 80%, for stage 4 CKD.
So the C&P Examiner in 2015, never mentioned that I was ever at stage 4. So they only rated me on my now medical status, which is stage 3. So I got an IMO from Dr. Anaise, and he states: A BVA decision in a similar case dated October 26, 2012 states (David Jones, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki, Docket No. 11-2704):
The court holds that the Board committed legal error by considering the effects of medication on the appellant's IBS when those effects were not explicitly contemplated by the rating criteria...As this Court has made clear, the Board's consideration of factors which are wholly outside the rating criteria provided by the regulations is error as a matter of law. "Massey v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 204, 208 (1994); see also Drosky v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 251, 255 (1997) (finding legal error where the Board, "in essence, impermissibly rewrote" the regulation by considering factors wholly outside the rating criteria); Pemorio v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 625, 628 (1992) ("In using a standard that exceeded that found in the regulation, the Board committed legal error").
Conclusion
After reviewing all of the veteran's medical and military records, it is my expert medical opinion that the veteran's service-connected renal dysfunction warrants an 80% rating. It is abundantly clear from the record that the veteran was diagnosed with stage IV renal failure with a creatinine of 4.5. It is true that the creatinine has improved once medication allowed for some recovery of kidney function. Yet, the rating specifically states that the veteran is entitle to 80% disability when his creatinine rises to 4.5, with no disclaimer to that statement.
A higher evaluation of 80% based on renal function is not warrant unless there is:
* Persistent edema and albuminuria; or, * Creatinine 4 to 8mg%; or, * BUN 40 to 80mg;
Question
Palma114
On 8/24/2016, VARO made a decision on my Chronic kidney disease claim. They granted me a 60% rating, on CKD stage 3, and Definite decrease in kidney function. I was initially at stage 4 CKD and sick, so they put me on several medications to get my numbers to come down, well after about 45 days it drop from stage 4 failure to moderate stage 3. So I initially filed my claim back in 2004, as all of this was occurring. So I just recently filed a NOD, which states I should have been granted 80%, for stage 4 CKD.
So the C&P Examiner in 2015, never mentioned that I was ever at stage 4. So they only rated me on my now medical status, which is stage 3. So I got an IMO from Dr. Anaise, and he states: A BVA decision in a similar case dated October 26, 2012 states (David Jones, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki, Docket No. 11-2704):
The court holds that the Board committed legal error by considering the effects of medication on the appellant's IBS when those effects were not explicitly contemplated by the rating criteria...As this Court has made clear, the Board's consideration of factors which are wholly outside the rating criteria provided by the regulations is error as a matter of law. "Massey v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 204, 208 (1994); see also Drosky v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 251, 255 (1997) (finding legal error where the Board, "in essence, impermissibly rewrote" the regulation by considering factors wholly outside the rating criteria); Pemorio v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 625, 628 (1992) ("In using a standard that exceeded that found in the regulation, the Board committed legal error").
Conclusion
After reviewing all of the veteran's medical and military records, it is my expert medical opinion that the veteran's service-connected renal dysfunction warrants an 80% rating. It is abundantly clear from the record that the veteran was diagnosed with stage IV renal failure with a creatinine of 4.5. It is true that the creatinine has improved once medication allowed for some recovery of kidney function. Yet, the rating specifically states that the veteran is entitle to 80% disability when his creatinine rises to 4.5, with no disclaimer to that statement.
A higher evaluation of 80% based on renal function is not warrant unless there is:
* Persistent edema and albuminuria; or, * Creatinine 4 to 8mg%; or, * BUN 40 to 80mg;
Edited by Palma114 (see edit history)Link to comment
Top Posters For This Question
8
5
4
3
Popular Days
Jan 8
9
Jan 9
4
Jul 21
3
Dec 24
2
Top Posters For This Question
Oceanbound 8 posts
Palma114 5 posts
jfrei 4 posts
john999 3 posts
Popular Days
Jan 8 2017
9 posts
Jan 9 2017
4 posts
Jul 21 2017
3 posts
Dec 24 2018
2 posts
Popular Posts
Palma114
On 8/24/2016, VARO made a decision on my Chronic kidney disease claim. They granted me a 60% rating, on CKD stage 3, and Definite decrease in kidney function. I was initially at stage 4 CKD and sick,
Nick2021
Received a decision on my sleep apnea as secondary to allergic rhinitis...approved, using Dr. Anaise's nexus letter.
Berta
That is Great News Nick!
33 answers to this question
Recommended Posts