Rating The Side Effects

[nomochow]

fellow Vets and friends of Hadit,

Can somene comment on how meds side effects affect a rating? I dont think there are ratings for effects but they must have some value since I have noticed elders say you should try to bring this to the attention of the rating activity.

[john999]

I can think of side effects from certain meds like morphine and other strong pain killers that make driving problamatic. This could be used to support a TDIU finding. If a vet is so doped up that he/she cannot drive or if they cannot think how can they work. I know when I use strong pain meds I have a very hard time understanding complex ideas. I think that if your IMO doctor lists all your problems and adds that you have adverse reactions to necessary meds this would help boost a finding by the doctor that you are IU or more disabled than just the physical limitations such as ROM would indicate. Remember the doctor should say the magic words to indicate what level of disability you have and the drug side effects would back that up. If you can't work the doctor must say that you can't work. If you are 50% disabled he must explain why using the standards that the VA uses.

[Berta]

Nomochow- in a TDIU claim , I always suggest under # 25 -Reamrks , that the vet tell VA the side affects of any SC meds they take that support unemployability.

This does not take the place of bonafide medical evidence of unemployability-but it is a facet of medical evidence that should be considered-

especially meds that cause drowsiness or cinfusion, or state do not take and drive, etc-

these are strong side affects. It pays to attach to any med list, a copy of the side affects of the specific meds too- which come with the meds from the VA pharmacy or can be printed off from any good internet med site.

Secondary conditions also can develop from SC meds and can be claimed.

This claim is on remand by the BVA and this is one part of the cvlaim they remanded for more info:

"The veteran contends that he has chronic hepatitis with

steatosis that was caused by medications prescribed for

service-connected bilateral chondromalacia of the knees and

Reiter's syndrome" from: http://www.va.gov/vetapp06/files4/0622042.txt

In this one the veteran claimed secondary conditions under Section 1151 due to VA medication:

http://www.va.gov/vetapp06/files3/0617465.txt

"The Board finds that the opinions of the January 2003 and

December 2003 examiners together can reasonably be read to

conclude that the skin cancers resulting from the use of

cyclosporine in this case were The Board finds that the opinions of the January 2003 and

December 2003 examiners together can reasonably be read to

conclude that the skin cancers resulting from the use of

cyclosporine in this case were not a reasonably foreseeable

consequence of VA's prescribing the drug to the veteran in

connection with his treatment.

Therefore, as the evidence is in relative equipoise in this

case in showing that the veteran's skin cancer as likely as

not was an event flowing from the use of immunosuppressive

medication prescribed by VA which was not reasonably

foreseeable.

By extending the benefit of the doubt to the veteran,

disability compensation is payable.

ORDER

Compensation benefits under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A.

§ 1151 for skin cancer based on medications prescribed by

treating VA physicians is granted.

Therefore, as the evidence is in relative equipoise in this

case in showing that the veteran's skin cancer as likely as

not was an event flowing from the use of immunosuppressive

medication prescribed by VA which was not reasonably

foreseeable.

By extending the benefit of the doubt to the veteran,

disability compensation is payable.

ORDER

Compensation benefits under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A.

§ 1151 for skin cancer based on medications prescribed by

treating VA physicians is granted. "

In my opinion a vet might be better off trying for secondary SC rather than Sec 1151 claim-because this decision contains a key statement:

'The Board finds that the opinions of the January 2003 and

December 2003 examiners together can reasonably be read to

conclude that the skin cancers resulting from the use of

cyclosporine in this case were not a reasonably foreseeable

consequence of VA's prescribing the drug to the veteran in

connection with his treatment.

Therefore, as the evidence is in relative equipoise in this

case in showing that the veteran's skin cancer as likely as

not was an event flowing from the use of immunosuppressive

medication prescribed by VA which was not reasonably

foreseeable.'

If VA found this had been a "reasonable foreseeable consequence" they could have denied.

This claim would have succeeded if the vet had claimed secondary instead of 1151 but the vet

had enough medical evidence to show this secondary disability was not foreseen.