Jump to content

  • veteranscrisisline-badge-chat-1.gif

  • Advertisemnt

  • Trouble Remembering? This helped me.

    I have memory problems and as some of you may know I highly recommend Evernote and have for years. Though I've found that writing helps me remember more. I ran across Tom's videos on youtube, I'm a bit geeky and I also use an IPad so if you take notes on your IPad or you are thinking of going paperless check it out. I'm really happy with it, I use it with a program called Noteshelf 2.

    Click here to purchase your digital journal. HadIt.com receives a commission on each purchase.

  • 14 Questions about VA Disability Compensation Benefits Claims


    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:   


  • Advertisemnt

  • VA Watchdog

  • 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

  • 0
Sign in to follow this  

The new AMA-Mobius loop?


Recommended Posts

  • 1

Thanks, Alex, for the map.  I completely agree, and have posted the same, as far as HLR...avoid HLR at any cost.  

One "important" improvement, however, is requested:  Put the new appeal form numbers on the relevant map.  

More than one Veteran is confused about the correct form to use in all the various denials, and we can count on VA to deny us again, even with a case of merit, if we file the appeal on the "wrong form".  

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Funny but all so true.

Alex  here is a

Quote from Ms Berta on another thred

''John, I mentioned your reference to "essential " hypertension in last week's show , in a letter to the Secretary-''

What exactly do they mean by  this ''essential'' In regard to the new A.O. Presumptions? In accordence for Heart Diesease from A.O. 

Vietnam Veterans and other Veterans as well that was around the A.O.  With evidence to prove it.

Also why is it so hard to get a VA Dr's to help A.O. Veterans with presumptive disease  with their claims  when all they need to do is confer they read the veterans medical records and give their opinion as likely as not this veteran disease is caused by or related to his duty from Vietnam service  or where ever the veteran was exposed to this A.O. While serving in the military....The Dr's think they will be fired  and I just don't buy that.

Its not fair the Veteran seek a private Dr for this  when its in his/her military records. (jmo)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

This is what I meant:

This is from my letter to Secretary Wilkie and anyone can make the same point it they write to him.I gave his Washington  address, twitter handle, and email addy here somewhere recently in the AO forum.

I prefaced this with quotes from the 2018 NAN (formerly IOM) reports.

The new report states "Sufficient evidence."The full report is here somewhere.

"Hypertension (category change from Limited or Suggestive in Update 2014)”


I feel “Sufficient evidence” is much stronger than the 2014 report regarding AO and hypertension.


I am aware how prevalent HBP is in the general elderly population.However that does not account for the Vietnam veteran's population separately, yet this newest report raises the nexus to hypertension as due to Agent Orange, regarding any incountry Vietnam veteran.Since HBP is treated so well these days, a VA rating due to HBP under this report,if considered as a presumptive, would not be as costly as one might think, as I would expect the ratings to be fairly low if the HBP is well controlled, medically. Most veterans have had their hypertension deemed as “essential” by VAdoctors , meaning there was no known cause for it, but now there is a cause and etiology- Agent Orange, based on the 2018 report."

My letter went on regarding ischemic stroke as a potential new AO and why, medically and I raised other issues comng his way.

(The big problem with HBP is the cost factor.)

Buck asked:

"What exactly do they mean by  this ''essential'' In regard to the new A.O. Presumptions? "

If the Sec picks Hypertention as a new AO presumptive, and

If Nehmer 2010 kicks in for a new Nehmer , and 

If it includes the Footnote One stipulation then any vet with past NSC hypertension and a rating of at least 10 % (maybe "0" would do as well that could become beginning of a retro staged Fenderson rating) who becomes an AO HBP vet via any new decision by the Secretary , then

that veteran might well get retro back to when the hypertension first appeared as NSC in a past decision.

Lots of ifs- and then there is the fact-

if Blue Waters succeed with proper regulations, as presumptive to AO, that too will be part of the HBP cost factor.

Nehmer applies to Vietnam incountry veterans. Blue Waters -if they are designated as incountry- will be under Nehmer-but I have no idea what their status will become.

There is so much to these issues- I dont have time to post all they involve- 

as soon as I hear anything on the BWN AO regs or from NVLSP on any new potentials, I will post it here.

Also NVLSP has something else in the works- re: AO and CUE----

Footnote one is explained here in our AO forum ad finitum.

I am a footnote one widow and many if not most of our Vietnam vets with IHD are /were probably Footnote One veterans. And NVLSP checked their retro to see if they got the correct EED.




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

This is why I suiggested in another post in th AO forum that now is the time for any Vietnam or BWN vet to see if their medical records reveal "essential" to describe their hypertention.

They might need that record for a proper EED.

And they should pull out any past denials and ratings sheets for HBP as well, if they are not SC for it under a different medical theory and rationale.

I believe that by mid June we will have the Secretary's decision. He could decide to put NONE of the 5 disabilities in the report on the AO list.

I  am still a little in shock that Shinseki did put IHD on the AO list.9 years ago. and it Was BIG News and involved lots of retro for many.




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I keep hitting the wall on IHD. I have a doctor say he has CAD. I get denied. I have a dr say Arteriosclerosis throughout (including the coronary arteries and peripherals). I get denied. I say Atherosclerosis. Denied. So now, I just get the 12 ga. out and have the nexus dr. do the whole gig. I try to get my guys to go to a private  doc on Medicare and get the magic IHD words. I'm finding using IHD is too nebulous for VA. I don't even ask or want the doctor to opine. It's presumptive. I just want them to say the secret word =IHD.

The only VA type docs who will do an IMO/nexus is the VAMCs that share a nursing school with the  VA med center -i.e. Duke/Salem/Seattle etc. Those docs do not "work " for VA. But, if you do not have them say the magic words ('I reviewed the claims file') it's dicey. To begin, a VA medical examination report is entitled to no weight if it contains only data and conclusions. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 304 (2008) If the VA Doc just says "It's more likely than not it's AO. " that won't win. Granted, AO is a presumptive and they aren't supposed to get in the weeds, but I'm talking about nasal cancer cases when they say it isn't in the respiratory canal or the lungs. If it's  small cell carcinoma, it's AO in my book. VA doesn't agree. That's when I'm forced to go get a good IMO. 

Edited by asknod

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Ads

  • Our picks

    • Tinnitus comes in two forms: subjective and objective. In subjective tinnitus, only the sufferer will hear the ringing in their own ears. In objective tinnitus, the sound can be heard by a doctor who is examining the ear canals. Objective tinnitus is extremely rare, while subjective tinnitus is by far the most common form of the disorder.

      The sounds of tinnitus may vary with the person experiencing it. Some will hear a ringing, while others will hear a buzzing. At times people may hear a chirping or whistling sound. These sounds may be constant or intermittent. They may also vary in volume and are generally more obtrusive when the sufferer is in a quiet environment. Many tinnitus sufferers find their symptoms are at their worst when they’re trying to fall asleep.

        • Like
    • Precedent Setting CAVC cases cited in the M21-1
      A couple months back before I received my decision I started preparing for the appeal I knew I would be filing.  That is how little faith I had in the VA caring about we the veteran. 

      One of the things I did is I went through the entire M21-1 and documented every CAVC precedent case that the VA cited. I did this because I wanted to see what the rater was seeing.  I could not understand for the life of me why so many obviously bad decisions were being handed down.  I think the bottom line is that the wrong type of people are hired as raters.  I think raters should have some kind of legal background.  They do not need to be lawyers but I think paralegals would be a good idea.

      There have been more than 3500 precedent setting decisions from the CAVC since 1989.  Now we need to concede that all of them are not favorable to the veteran but I have learned that in a lot of cases even though the veteran lost a case it some rules were established that assisted other veterans.

      The document I created has about 200 or so decisions cited in the M21-1.   Considering the fact that there are more than 3500 precedent cases out there I think it is safe to assume the VA purposely left out decisions that would make it almost impossible to deny veteran claims.  Case in point. I know of 14 precedent setting decisions that state the VA cannot ignore or give no weight to outside doctors without providing valid medical reasons as to why.  Most of these decision are not cited by the M21.

      It is important that we do our due diligence to make sure we do not get screwed.  I think the M21-1 is incomplete because there is too much information we veterans are finding on our own to get the benefits we deserve

      M21-1 Precedent setting decisions .docx
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 5 replies
    • Any one heard of this , I filed a claim for this secondary to hypertension, I had a echo cardiogram, that stated the diagnosis was this heart disease. my question is what is the rating for this. attached is the Echo.

      • 7 replies
    • Need your support - T-shirts Available - Please buy a mug or a membership
      if you have been thinking about subscribing to an ad-free forum or buying a mug now would a very helpful time to do that.

      Thank you for your support
      • 18 replies
    • OK everyone thanks for all the advice I need your help I called VSO complained about length of time on Wednesday of this week today I checked my E benefits and my ratings are in for my ankles that they were denying me 10% for each bilateral which makes 21% I was originally 80% now they’re still saying I’m 80% 

      I’m 50% pes planus 30% migraine headaches 20% lumbar 10% tinnitus and now bilateral 21% so 10% left and right ankle Can someone else please do the math because I come up with 86% which makes me 90 what am I missing please help and thank you
  • Ads

  • Popular Contributors

  • Ad

  • Latest News
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines