Jump to content

Sponsored Ads



  • 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
     
  • Advertisemnt

  • 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

  • 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

  • Our picks

    • I would like to meet other Hadit members who live in Michigan.  We have at least two major VA Hospitals (Battle Creek, Ann Arbor).  Or maybe you go to the the John Dingell in Detroit.  

      I like Ann Arbor.  I like the fact that most of the doctors there are also at the UM Hospital.  I don't like how uickly they seem to turn over though.  
      • 2 replies
    • Really?
      I am confused.  A few days ago I spoke to a person at a VARO who said if I die from something other than service-connected my husband gets zero, zilch, squat.  Hmmmmmm, it seems the rules change willy-nilly...I have been rated 100% P & T for over 10 years, MS is static, and I am 56 years of age.

      Can a fellow Veteran shed a light on this?

      Thank you.
      • 15 replies
    • Fund raising for HadIt.com
      The site is supported through ads and ad free subscriptions, we are also asking for any support you would like to send our way. You can give a $1 or more it all helps. Keep in mind though that it is NOT tax deductible and we are NOT a non profit. As the site grows so do the costs and ads and subscription do not always keep pace with the costs. Any help is appreciated, but not required.
      • 8 replies
    • Carol Ozanecki- Blue Water vet Advocate called me with this news:

      https://www.stripes.com/news/lawmakers-launch-new-effort-to-provide-agent-orange-coverage-for-blue-water-navy-vets-1.525395

      Also there is a article in Pop Culture she sent to me----mentionig Blue Water vets buy I felt it was too political to post here. You can google it if you want to read it.

       

       
      • 9 replies
    • Cue Claim Template?
      I was told by my VSO to write a statement for a CUE claim. I am looking at the CUE because the VA didn't follow VA Training Letter 10-02 that should have directly S/C'ed me for my tinnitus without an exam, but also because they approved my Re-open claim 2 years later and the only difference was a new C&P exam.

      Any help would be great. This is what I came up with:

      I respectfully request the VA to call a clear and unmistakable error on part of the January 3, 2013 decision from the Boise VARO and to correct it.

      In this Decision Letter, I was denied service-connection for Tinnitus. I mentioned tinnitus (ringing in the ears) on my April 4, 2012 Statement in Support of Claim for hearing loss. Tinnitus is listed as a deferred claim on my September 4, 2012 Decision Letter. I submitted a Statement in Support of Claim for Tinnitus on September 5, 2012 and again on October 25, 2012.

      I was given a C&P exam on August 14, 2012 by Audiology and Hearing Aid Center in Boise, Idaho.

      I received my Decision letter with the denial of Tinnitus on January 3, 2013 stating that “Your service treatment records do not contain complaints, treatment or diagnosis for this condition”.

      During my C&P exam, it was stated that I didn’t have any mention of tinnitus in my Service Treatment Records (STR).

      On the Compensation and Pension Exam Inquiry dated July 13, 2012 on page 3, the hearing exam that was completed on 4/1/2008 is also where my tinnitus was identified while in service, but there was no mention of my tinnitus in the inquiry.

      The evidence listed on my Decision Letter dated January 13, 2013 listed Service Treatment Records from June 5, 1989 to March 3, 2010.

      In VA Training Letter 10-02 dated March 18, 2010, on page 7, item #5 it states: If service treatment records mention a complaint of tinnitus and the veteran claims tinnitus and has current complaints of tinnitus, a medical opinion regarding possible causation is not required. Service connection can be established without an opinion about the specific cause of the tinnitus because it began in service.

      The VA's failure to consider and evaluate the evidence and follow VA Training Letters that the VA had in their possession manifestly altered the outcome of the decision referred to above.

      If the Tinnitus claim was approved on the Decision Letter dated January 13, 2013, it would have increased my rating from 60% to 70% at the time.
      • 30 replies
×

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines