Jump to content
  • Donation Box

    Please donate to support the community.
    We appreciate all donations!
  • Advertisemnt

  • 14 Questions about VA Disability Compensation Benefits Claims

    questions-001@3x.png

    When a Veteran starts considering whether or not to file a VA Disability Claim, there are a lot of questions that he or she tends to ask. Over the last 10 years, the following are the 14 most common basic questions I am asked about ...
    Continue Reading
     
  • Ads

  • Most Common VA Disabilities Claimed for Compensation:   

    tinnitus-005.pngptsd-005.pnglumbosacral-005.pngscars-005.pnglimitation-flexion-knee-005.pngdiabetes-005.pnglimitation-motion-ankle-005.pngparalysis-005.pngdegenerative-arthitis-spine-005.pngtbi-traumatic-brain-injury-005.png

  • Advertisemnt

  • Advertisemnt

  • Ads

  • Can a 100 percent Disabled Veteran Work and Earn an Income?

    employment 2.jpeg

    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

Sponsored Ads

  •  ad-free-subscription-002.jpeg     fund-the-site.jpg

  • Searches Community Forums, Blog and more

  • 1
Berta

VA Press Release on more AO presumptives

Question

"
11/01/2017 07:07 PM EDT
 

 Statement from Secretary of Veterans Affairs on Agent Orange Presumptive Conditions

                 Today, U.S. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Dr. David J. Shulkin announced that he is considering  possible new presumptive conditions that may qualify for disability compensation related to Agent Orange exposure.

                “After thoroughly reviewing the National Academy of Medicine (NAM)’s latest report regarding Veterans and Agent Orange, and associated data and recommendations from the NAM Task Force, I have made a decision to further explore new presumptive conditions for service connection that may ultimately qualify for disability compensation,”  Secretary Shulkin said.   “I appreciate NAM’s work and the commitment and expertise of VA’s NAM Task Force, and look forward to working with the Administration on the next steps in the process.”

                The Department of Veterans Affairs will now begin work with the Administration to concurrently conduct a legal and regulatory review of these potential presumptive conditions for awarding disability compensation to eligible veterans."

more info here:

 

This is not a decision on what new conditions he might find service connectable to AO- but he promised that on Nov 1, 2017 we would have some news- which c ould have been his decision  not to SC any more disabilities.

This is a different approach than Sec Shinseki used and this might well be the time for any Vietnam vet who has a disability the IOM found to have an association, even if limited, with AO ,to write to the Secretary as to why they feel they have no other etiology but for their exposure to AO, to be disabled by something that NAM and IOM found worthy of the Secretary's consideration.

I was afraid to open this email because I almost felt he might deide against any new presumptives. This is good news, but like the AO ship's list,it might well take hearing from Vietnam vets themselves, as that sure helped the AO ship's list to grow.

Edited by Berta
added link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

They got this list in 2014. What is the holdup? Why didn't they already do these studies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ad

  • 0

Some of the past IOM studies have been revisited.

AO has had a long history, and many more additional presumptives have been added  since the first AOs- PN and Chloracne-the PN regulations at that time ( 1991 I think) were almost impossible for any Vietnam Vet to attain SC for- due to AO.

I have followed the AO issue since 1991 when my husband was part of the original Agent Orange Settlement Fund.

The court findings  and criteria for that class action lawsuit were not  binding on the VA.

This stuff always takes a long time to get resolved.

The VA link does not reveal much about the actual presumptives the Secretary is considering...a reporter stated today there are 14 disabilities under consideration yet I had to email them as to what the 14 disabilities are and for a link to the actual NAM (IOM) reports. 

There is always a lot to this issue and the best references are either from the VA itself or from NVLSP. At this point NVLSP is waiting,like all of us, for what new presumptives will go on the list.

I sure hope if the regulations are allowed public comment that veterans will take advantage of commenting on how Agent Orange has altered their life ( or their survivors will comment).

 

Edited by Berta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I asked the reporter of this article for a link to the IOM studies and here it is:

https://manchesterinklink.com/secretary-of-veterans-affairs-considers-14-conditions-linked-to-agent-orange-exposure/

As she said in reply to my comment/request- it is over 1,000 pages long but a worthy read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I read recently that the most recent IOM/NAM AO Report was the last to be conducted. As I recall the discussion, (2) relatively expensive Disabilities that stand a decent chance of being added to the AO Presumptive List are Hypertension and (?? cant recall the other}. Both had moved up from their prior "Limited Evidence of AO association."

Hypertension seemed to big the Big $$ Retro Issue, if made a AO Presumptive. I believe the other Condition was of a Neurological nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Gotta love the irony. The VA reviewed a report produced by NAM on AO impact on veterans who served in 'Nam and elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Ads

  • Ad

  • Latest News
  • Our picks

    • I filed for my mitral valve regurgitation heart disease secondary to a service-connected condition on 7-30-18. It was granted on 8-30-18. Since I filed for this heart valve issue and was awarded, can I still file for hypertension ? I have been seeing comments that you should file for hypertension first and file for heart disease as a secondary. Can I file for hypertension as a secondary to my heart disease ? I am alittle confused on this matter.

      Dan
    • How to Change the Theme - Look and Colors
      How to Change the Theme - Look and Colors
      • 5 replies
    • For Calculating Retro

      VA Disability Compensation Rates 2012 | 2011 | 2010-2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999

      Prior to 1999 check here https://www.hadit.com/va-disability-compensation-rates-historic-for-retro-calculation/
      • 0 replies
    • I am a 100% disabled veteran, At first I was super excited to find out I am getting retro pay for back benefits to 2006. But that was over 2 months ago. I been waiting and waiting and calling to ask them wheres my back pay. They first told me "one month" than I call again. The guy started reading a script of basically "we are malingering on paying you" type crap. I was wondering if there is any number I can call besides that 800-827-1000 number to inquire about my status. I don't know why its taken so long when there is specific information telling them from the judge that VA owes. 

      There was a remanded to see if I was eligible for IU (I get it now since 2014 im actually 90% with 10 of that been IU). I been on SS since 2004. Can Someone help me out? Thank you
      • 6 replies
    • You might have a 38 CFR 3.156 situation-

      meaning the VA might have considered your claim in 95/96 as "not well grounded" and failed to even get your STRs.Or they did get your STRs but never considered the specific entry you cited here.

      Lots of discussion under a search, of 38 CFR. 3.156 (a)(b) (c) ---here is a winner:

      https://community.hadit.com/topic/52994-cue-in-failing-to-apply-the-provisions-of-38-cfr-§-3156c-for-effective-date/

      o

       
        • Thanks
×

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines