Sleep Apnea (Reopened Claim)

[rk4435]

I was originally denied for Sleep Apnea in 2012.  My Pulmonologist that treats me for lung damage from Burn Pit Exposure believes that my Sleep Apnea is secondary to the exposure.  He even offered to write a nexus letter.  No one has ever offered help before, of course I accepted.

The claim is now reopened and I have submitted his letter.  If it is granted would the effective date be the date I reopened with new evidence, or the original date of the claim?

Thank you for any knowledge.

[GBArmy]

You had a year to appeal or lose your original effective date when you first applied. Assuming it was denied more than a year ago, sorry, but it would be a new claim. But it is fantastic that your doc offered to write the nexus letter. There are examples on this forum on what to include, but be sure it says that it is as least likely as not that the burn pit exposure caused your SA at a minimum. He could supplement the letter if it wasn't included. Be sure to let us know how it goes.

 

[rk4435]

"Of note, his initial respiratory problem was shortness of breath consistent with asthma.  Shortly after the set of his asthma symptoms, he developed sleep apnea.  As his asthma progressed, his sleep apnea progressed.  Asthma is a known risk factor for sleep apnea.  I believe his asthma is clearly related to his two deployments.  His sleep apnea should be considered a complication of his asthma and therefore a deployment related condition." 

I don't see how they will deny that, but I'm sure they will find a way. 

[ShrekTheTank]

58 minutes ago, rk4435 said:

"Of note, his initial respiratory problem was shortness of breath consistent with asthma.  Shortly after the set of his asthma symptoms, he developed sleep apnea.  As his asthma progressed, his sleep apnea progressed.  Asthma is a known risk factor for sleep apnea.  I believe his asthma is clearly related to his two deployments.  His sleep apnea should be considered a complication of his asthma and therefore a deployment related condition." 

I don't see how they will deny that, but I'm sure they will find a way. 

get your doc to write their IMO and you can also post some of the studies where they link sleep apnea to burn pits.  You can win this!

[rk4435]

2 hours ago, shrekthetank1 said:

get your doc to write their IMO and you can also post some of the studies where they link sleep apnea to burn pits.  You can win this!

Do you think the letter will not take care of it as is?

[doc25]

4 hours ago, rk4435 said:

I was originally denied for Sleep Apnea in 2012.  My Pulmonologist that treats me for lung damage from Burn Pit Exposure believes that my Sleep Apnea is secondary to the exposure.  He even offered to write a nexus letter.  No one has ever offered help before, of course I accepted.

The claim is now reopened and I have submitted his letter.  If it is granted would the effective date be the date I reopened with new evidence, or the original date of the claim?

Thank you for any knowledge.

In order to get retropay for the earliest effective date/original date of your claim, you would need to find a Clear and Unmistakable Error or CUE.

Your effective date, if granted this time around; will be the date you reopened the claim.

[doc25]

15 minutes ago, rk4435 said:

Do you think the letter will not take care of it as is?

[I'm guessing you are already service connected for Asthma? Is this correct? If yes, proceed and read below.

If no, you will need to get Asthma service connected first.]

Unfortunately, there is legal terminology that is required in a nexus of opinion.

Your Dr. has to state one of these phrases for a favorable nexus.

1. "Due to" (100% probability)

Ex. The veteran's claimed condition is due to the veteran's service-connected Asthma and the veteran's burn pit exposures in military service..

2. "More likely than not" (Greater than 50% probability)

Ex. The veteran's claimed condition is more likely than not, due to the veteran's service-connected Asthma and the veteran's burn pit exposures in military service.

3. "At least as likely as not" (Equal to or greater than 50% probability)

Ex. The veteran's claimed condition is at least as likely as not, due to the veteran's service-connected Asthma and the veteran's burn pit exposures in military service. 

 

Here is a study below I attached that you can show your doctor and see if he'll use it to make the link in his rationale.

Asthma_and_obstructive_sleep_apnea_More_than_an_as.pdf