Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

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

  • homepage-banner-2024-2.png

  • donate-be-a-hero.png

  • 0

Cue Question

Rate this question


Guest haroldkd

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:

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

  • Answers 3
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Days

Top Posters For This Question

3 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

Guest Morgan
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:

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

Guest haroldkd
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

  • HadIt.com Elder
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:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use