Guest haroldkd Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 IF THE C&P EXAM DOCTOR WRITES THE DIAGNOSIS AS FOLLOWS: DIAGNOSIS MULTIPLE SEBACEOUS CYSTS CHRONIC, RECURRING, OF THE BACK OF THE NECK AND THE RATING SPECIALISTS WRITE ON FORM 21-6796-1 RATING FORM THIS VETERAN FILED A CLAIM SEEKING SERVICE CONNECTION FOR DERMATITUS. THE EVIDENCE OF RECORD SHOWS THAT DURING SERVICE AND SINCE SERVICE AS SHOWN BY THE CURRENT PHYSICAL EXAMINATION THE VETERAN HAS MULTIPLE SEBACEOUS CYST, CHRONIC, RECURRING OF THE BACK OF THE NECK. SINCE THESE CYSTS ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL AND DEVELO[MENTAL ABNORMALITY THEY WILL BE DISPOSED OF UNDER CODE 13, AS IT IS NOT SHOWN THE VETEREN HAD DERMATITUS DURING SERVICE. FACT 1: DERMATITUS WAS 1 OF 6 DIFFEREENT DIAGNOSIS FOR THE HEAD AND NECK DISEASE OVER A TWO YEAR PERIOD THEN ON THE DECISION MAILED TO ME THE RATING WAS WRITTEN AS FOLLOWS YOUR MULTIPLE SEBACEOUS CYST ON BACK OF NECK ARE NOT A DISEASE OR INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING PAYMENT OF DISABILITY COMPENSATION AND PENSION. SERVICE CONNECTION MAY NOT BE GRANTED FOR THIS. MY QUESTION: IF THE CHRONIC AND RECURRING WAS IN THE C&P EXAM, AS IT WAS AND THE CHRONIC AND RECURRING WAS ON THE RATING SHEET, AS IT WAS WILL THERE BE A PROBLEM WHERE THE RATING OFFICER OR WHOMEVER LEFT IT OFF THE DENIAL MAILED TO ME. BECAUSE THE CUE HERE IS 38CFR 3.303( CHRONICITY AND CONTINUITY, WITH THAT THE DISEASE IS SERVICE CONNECTED. THAT IS THE BASIS FOR CUE, THEY DID NOT FOLLOW THE FACTS AND LAW AT THE TIME OF THIS DENIAL JAN 3, 1962 THE 38CFR 3.303 SHOWS A DATE OF (26 FR 1579, FEB 24, 1961) 10 MONTHS BEFORE MY DENIAL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Morgan Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 IF THE C&P EXAM DOCTOR WRITES THE DIAGNOSIS AS FOLLOWS: DIAGNOSIS MULTIPLE SEBACEOUS CYSTS CHRONIC, RECURRING, OF THE BACK OF THE NECK AND THE RATING SPECIALISTS WRITE ON FORM 21-6796-1 RATING FORM THIS VETERAN FILED A CLAIM SEEKING SERVICE CONNECTION FOR DERMATITUS. THE EVIDENCE OF RECORD SHOWS THAT DURING SERVICE AND SINCE SERVICE AS SHOWN BY THE CURRENT PHYSICAL EXAMINATION THE VETERAN HAS MULTIPLE SEBACEOUS CYST, CHRONIC, RECURRING OF THE BACK OF THE NECK. SINCE THESE CYSTS ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL AND DEVELO[MENTAL ABNORMALITY THEY WILL BE DISPOSED OF UNDER CODE 13, AS IT IS NOT SHOWN THE VETEREN HAD DERMATITUS DURING SERVICE. FACT 1: DERMATITUS WAS 1 OF 6 DIFFEREENT DIAGNOSIS FOR THE HEAD AND NECK DISEASE OVER A TWO YEAR PERIOD THEN ON THE DECISION MAILED TO ME THE RATING WAS WRITTEN AS FOLLOWS YOUR MULTIPLE SEBACEOUS CYST ON BACK OF NECK ARE NOT A DISEASE OR INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING PAYMENT OF DISABILITY COMPENSATION AND PENSION. SERVICE CONNECTION MAY NOT BE GRANTED FOR THIS. MY QUESTION: IF THE CHRONIC AND RECURRING WAS IN THE C&P EXAM, AS IT WAS AND THE CHRONIC AND RECURRING WAS ON THE RATING SHEET, AS IT WAS WILL THERE BE A PROBLEM WHERE THE RATING OFFICER OR WHOMEVER LEFT IT OFF THE DENIAL MAILED TO ME. BECAUSE THE CUE HERE IS 38CFR 3.303( CHRONICITY AND CONTINUITY, WITH THAT THE DISEASE IS SERVICE CONNECTED. THAT IS THE BASIS FOR CUE, THEY DID NOT FOLLOW THE FACTS AND LAW AT THE TIME OF THIS DENIAL JAN 3, 1962 THE 38CFR 3.303 SHOWS A DATE OF (26 FR 1579, FEB 24, 1961) 10 MONTHS BEFORE MY DENIAL Harold, Is this type of cyst considered dermatitis? I had a sebaceous cyst and it was never labeled dermatitis. The doctor told me that a sebaceous cyst is a clogged oil gland -- which can develop to be quite large. They can become infected and sore, and that could be a problem, but usually they are just a nuisance. I did finally have to have mine removed. So it depends on whether this is a disabling condition. Remember, the VA is considering the degree to which each condition keeps you from being gainfully employed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest haroldkd Posted October 6, 2005 Share Posted October 6, 2005 Harold, Is this type of cyst considered dermatitis? I had a sebaceous cyst and it was never labeled dermatitis. The doctor told me that a sebaceous cyst is a clogged oil gland -- which can develop to be quite large. They can become infected and sore, and that could be a problem, but usually they are just a nuisance. I did finally have to have mine removed. So it depends on whether this is a disabling condition. Remember, the VA is considering the degree to which each condition keeps you from being gainfully employed. The C&P doctor also wrote this, condition: is in the back of the neck, it often drains, it is disfiguring, and may be repulsive, it is often sore, it may be incapacitating recommend: 1. a coarse of x-ray therapy at weekly intervals for 6-8 treatments 2. boric acid compresses 3.can't read this line 4. excision or drainage as needed I now know where the problems i have came from this skin disease and why I still have a problem. I have had a C&P exam and I have a non-curable disease called scleredema I had it in the service but they never got the diagnosis right, The latest C&P doctor said it is more likely than not that the scleredema I have now was scleredema back in 1961 in the service. this was not 1 cyst, this has been multiple and deep infection and large cysts. Causind head and neck pain and headaches, there is large areas of below skin level of skin damage. I kept my hair long to cover up the area and cysts. I was self conscience and did not want anyone to know. I went to private dermatologist after the va denied my claim, but after a couple years of no help I gave up. There are other committments for a persons money and there was not enough to keep spending on the dermatologist. I was married and had 2 young children. Its best not to complain. From 1961 thru 1982 I had a lot of headaches, bad ones, part of them from the back of the head and other ones from the front, they got so bad I finally (after 20 years) went to a headache specialist in Chicago. I went on Inderal that took care of 75 to 80 percent of the real bad headaches. In life thats a real good break. Well I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HadIt.com Elder Hoppy Posted October 6, 2005 HadIt.com Elder Share Posted October 6, 2005 IF THE C&P EXAM DOCTOR WRITES THE DIAGNOSIS AS FOLLOWS: DIAGNOSIS MULTIPLE SEBACEOUS CYSTS CHRONIC, RECURRING, OF THE BACK OF THE NECK AND THE RATING SPECIALISTS WRITE ON FORM 21-6796-1 RATING FORM THIS VETERAN FILED A CLAIM SEEKING SERVICE CONNECTION FOR DERMATITUS. THE EVIDENCE OF RECORD SHOWS THAT DURING SERVICE AND SINCE SERVICE AS SHOWN BY THE CURRENT PHYSICAL EXAMINATION THE VETERAN HAS MULTIPLE SEBACEOUS CYST, CHRONIC, RECURRING OF THE BACK OF THE NECK. SINCE THESE CYSTS ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL AND DEVELO[MENTAL ABNORMALITY THEY WILL BE DISPOSED OF UNDER CODE 13, AS IT IS NOT SHOWN THE VETEREN HAD DERMATITUS DURING SERVICE. FACT 1: DERMATITUS WAS 1 OF 6 DIFFEREENT DIAGNOSIS FOR THE HEAD AND NECK DISEASE OVER A TWO YEAR PERIOD THEN ON THE DECISION MAILED TO ME THE RATING WAS WRITTEN AS FOLLOWS YOUR MULTIPLE SEBACEOUS CYST ON BACK OF NECK ARE NOT A DISEASE OR INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING PAYMENT OF DISABILITY COMPENSATION AND PENSION. SERVICE CONNECTION MAY NOT BE GRANTED FOR THIS. MY QUESTION: IF THE CHRONIC AND RECURRING WAS IN THE C&P EXAM, AS IT WAS AND THE CHRONIC AND RECURRING WAS ON THE RATING SHEET, AS IT WAS WILL THERE BE A PROBLEM WHERE THE RATING OFFICER OR WHOMEVER LEFT IT OFF THE DENIAL MAILED TO ME. BECAUSE THE CUE HERE IS 38CFR 3.303( CHRONICITY AND CONTINUITY, WITH THAT THE DISEASE IS SERVICE CONNECTED. THAT IS THE BASIS FOR CUE, THEY DID NOT FOLLOW THE FACTS AND LAW AT THE TIME OF THIS DENIAL JAN 3, 1962 THE 38CFR 3.303 SHOWS A DATE OF (26 FR 1579, FEB 24, 1961) 10 MONTHS BEFORE MY DENIAL It sounds to me like they are not disputing chronicity one way or the other. They are saying the disease is developmental. The VA does not usually service connect developmental diseases. What they are saying is that you were born with it. The issue of developmental preceedes chronicity. Thus, if they determined that it was developmenal there may not be a need for them to address the issue of chronicity. You can have developmental conditions service connected if they were aggravated by military service. Get a dotor to write a report that your condition is not developmental or that sweating, phgysical activity or other types of events in service aggravated the condition. Also get a specific medical opinion that the headaches are caused by the cysts. They mentioned six different diagnosis. What they are saying is that there are to many confusing issues. Ask to have a specialist review all the diagnosis and resolve this problem. If it went to the BVA, the BVA could remand it to have a specialist resolve this issue. It does not sound like the evidence has not been fully developed. The fact that the case was not properly adjudicated does not always equal a CUE claim. People who are more familiar with CUES may be able to provide additional info on CUES. Hoppy 100% for Angioedema with secondary conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Question
Guest haroldkd
IF THE C&P EXAM DOCTOR WRITES THE DIAGNOSIS AS FOLLOWS:
DIAGNOSIS MULTIPLE SEBACEOUS CYSTS CHRONIC, RECURRING,
OF THE BACK OF THE NECK
AND THE RATING SPECIALISTS WRITE ON FORM 21-6796-1 RATING FORM
THIS VETERAN FILED A CLAIM SEEKING SERVICE CONNECTION FOR
DERMATITUS.
THE EVIDENCE OF RECORD SHOWS THAT DURING SERVICE AND SINCE
SERVICE AS SHOWN BY THE CURRENT PHYSICAL EXAMINATION THE VETERAN
HAS MULTIPLE SEBACEOUS CYST, CHRONIC, RECURRING OF THE BACK OF
THE NECK.
SINCE THESE CYSTS ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL AND DEVELO[MENTAL
ABNORMALITY THEY WILL BE DISPOSED OF UNDER CODE 13, AS
IT IS NOT SHOWN THE VETEREN HAD DERMATITUS DURING SERVICE.
FACT 1: DERMATITUS WAS 1 OF 6 DIFFEREENT DIAGNOSIS FOR
THE HEAD AND NECK DISEASE OVER A TWO YEAR PERIOD
THEN ON THE DECISION MAILED TO ME THE RATING WAS WRITTEN
AS FOLLOWS
YOUR MULTIPLE SEBACEOUS CYST ON BACK OF NECK
ARE NOT A DISEASE OR INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING
OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING PAYMENT OF
DISABILITY COMPENSATION AND PENSION.
SERVICE CONNECTION MAY NOT BE GRANTED FOR THIS.
MY QUESTION: IF THE CHRONIC AND RECURRING WAS
IN THE C&P EXAM, AS IT WAS
AND THE CHRONIC AND RECURRING WAS
ON THE RATING SHEET, AS IT WAS
WILL THERE BE A PROBLEM WHERE THE RATING OFFICER
OR WHOMEVER LEFT IT OFF THE DENIAL MAILED TO ME.
BECAUSE THE CUE HERE IS 38CFR 3.303(![:rolleyes:](//content.invisioncic.com/r264491/emoticons/default_rolleyes.gif)
CHRONICITY AND CONTINUITY, WITH THAT
THE DISEASE IS SERVICE CONNECTED.
THAT IS THE BASIS FOR CUE, THEY DID NOT
FOLLOW THE FACTS AND LAW AT THE TIME OF
THIS DENIAL JAN 3, 1962
THE 38CFR 3.303 SHOWS A DATE OF
(26 FR 1579, FEB 24, 1961)
10 MONTHS BEFORE MY DENIAL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
1
Popular Days
Oct 5
2
Oct 6
2
Top Posters For This Question
Hoppy 1 post
Popular Days
Oct 5 2005
2 posts
Oct 6 2005
2 posts
3 answers to this question
Recommended Posts