HBP awarded due to AO!!!!!!!!!

[Berta]

This is one of the issues I wrote to Secretary Wilkie about- I feel I made a strong argument for HBP to become an AO presumptive-

then  I was advised by my VARO to apply for accrued on the new form and with a different VARO.

These are CUE claims, and they ( my RO held one back) and sent me a letter that said the letter to Wilkie had been sent to them, and they held back my 1151 HBP claim.

Which had been awarded 3 weeks after they denied ,due to my CUE on the denial. They said I already got paid the proper retro ,but I didnt.

I have a CUE pending on the 1151, at my RO but I think I will file a new claim just like this one, direct SC is far better than 1151 SC.

My evidence will be the IOM (NAM) report and it is linked here- others can do that as well----if you have HBP, and the VA deemed it as "essential" meaning they do not know what the cause is- the report gave us a cause- AO ( sufficient nexus- per the report.........................

Citation Nr: 19141330
Decision Date: 05/29/19    Archive Date: 05/29/19

"DOCKET NO. 15-44 589
DATE:    May 29, 2019

ORDER

Service connection for hypertension to include as due to herbicide exposure is granted.

Service connection for a skin disability, to include Tinea cruris, to include as due to herbicide exposure is granted.

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for obstructive sleep apnea is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for hepatitis is remanded. 

Entitlement to service connection for sexual dysfunction, to include erectile dysfunction is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for sleep dysfunction, to include insomnia is remanded."

https://www.va.gov/vetapp19/files5/19141330.txt

It appears the IMO doc used the latest findings from NAM( IOM) report I have put a link to in this forum.

When I get home from church I will search to see if there are more grants like this-I could hardly believe this when I read it----it popped up in a BVA search I did for something unrelated......Divine intervention.

weather messing up my posts......

 

 

ding on the award. The EED is wrong and OGC Pres Op 08-97 says they have to pay me regarding all of these CUE claims, under 1151.

It seemed they held the HBP claim because of the  Wilkie letter and the possibility that HBP could become an AO presumptive, but I am going to file this CUE for accrued as well on a 21P-601. 

This is the decision-(above) post all messed up.

 

 

Edited July 21, 2019 by Berta
internet problems. wind

[Berta]

 

        ." In March 2018, Dr. P.T. submitted medical opinions that opined it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s hypertension and tinea cruris were caused by the Veteran’s exposure to herbicides during service. The rationale provided for the hypertension was that research from the National Institute of Health indicated there was a direct connection between Dioxine exposure and hypertension. The rationale provided for the Tinea cruris was, that Dioxine exposure affects the Thymus gland in regulating immunity and a reduction in the immune system lowers the body’s ability to fight opportunistic skin."

(I think tinea crusis is the jock itch many Vietnam vets got there.)

https://www.va.gov/vetapp19/files5/19141330.txt

I could not find the NIH Report that BVA referred to, but this recent report, that Secretary Wilkie has states  this:

“Hypertension

The committee concluded that the information now assembled constitutes sufficient evidence of an association between exposure to at least one of the COIs and hypertension.”

 

Page 10 of 716 pages.

COI means “chemicals of interest”. Hericides in Vietnam (AO) are one of those chemicals of interest in this report.

This report also refers to a different  report as well , that maybe the BVA used.

This entire report was done by the NAP National  Academic Press

http://www.nationalacademies.org/

I strongly suggest that any incountry ( and Blue Water veterans ( if your ship is on the July 2019 Ships list here, or within the lat/long coordinates of your ship, regarding HR 299, shoud think about  filing a claim for IHB due to AO,particularly if the VA has deemed your HBP as “essential.”And it is rated as NSC.

And send them the first initial pages of this report as well as a copy of page 10.

You still might need an IMO but we do not know if the Sec will add any new presumptives ( this is the strongest one in my opinion on the potential list)   then again maybe we should wait to see if the Sec does add HBP……

But I sure am getting my evidence together for filing  this type of claim.

 

 

 

 

 

[Berta]

I am bumping this up because , whether the Secretary adds HBP to the AO presumptives, or not there is still a way to get service connected for it, as the above veteran did.

I have claimed my husband's HBP is due to his established AO exposure-

He wanted me to leave no stone unturned,if he died due to VA health care , an although we had problems with his care in his lifetime, we had No idea what his true medical situation was....until after he died)and I have been dealing with an audit request that is being worked on ( and that could potentially alleviate further adjudication on two of my pending CUE claims). The end product of all that and this new claim would be the end of turning over the 'stones.'

Also our very astute member here, jbasser, has pointed out- if you fall under the AO Nehmer regulations, and have been deemed to have "essential" HBP by the VA, possibly rated already as NSC with a % in any past VA decision, the medical term " essential" ,means no known cause, but the report the veteran used in the above BVA cause is what I am using as well-the same report Secretary Wilkie is considering for any potential new presumptives.

This is directly from my claim and it might help someone else:

(The 1151 part is expanded on in that specific CUE,that the audit might resolve)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                   "    "---Claim Exhibits C and D

Claim (Exhibit C)for accrued benefits  due as direct service connection of my husband’s Hypertension due to his proven exposure to Agent Orange In Vietnam and

 CUE claim )Exhibit D)for accrued benefits  based on my husband’s 1151 Hypertension, as it regards Office of General Counsel Precedent Decision #08-97.                                                                                              

              I am providing two theories of entitlement.

The September 4, 2018 CUE ( Exhibit D) rests on proper application of General Counsel Precedent Opinion # 08-97   and proper EED.                             Exhibit E

Claim ( Exhibit C):

              I also claim entitlement to accrued benefits due to my husband’s proven exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam during the Vietnam War, as causing his “essential” HBP.The VA deemed his HBP as essential because there was no known cause for it. However the National Academies Press has published the same study referred to by the BVA : “The rationale provided for the hypertension was that research from the National Institute of Health indicated there was a direct connection between Dioxine exposure and hypertension. “***

Source: https://www.va.gov/vetapp19/files5/19141330.txt

*** that is how the BVA spelled Dioxine in the opinion)

 

              I include page one and page 8 of that study, as published by the NAP, the same study Secretary Wilkie is considering.                                                                                                                                 Exhibit F  pages

              The veteran in that case had an IMO/IME.

              The Medical opinion I have is from Dr. XXXX XXXXXX , VACO            Exhibit G

I also cite https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.816, regarding “Awards under the Nehmer Court Orders for disability or death caused by a condition presumptively associated with herbicide exposure.”

I also cite this statement from the VA’s Web site:

“If you have an illness that’s not on the list of Agent Orange‒related diseases, but you believe was caused by Agent Orange

You’ll need to:

You’ll need to:

Provide scientific and medical evidence that the condition is related to exposure to Agent Orange, or

Show that the problem started during—or got worse because of—your military service

Scientific proof may include an article from a medical journal or a published research study.”

Source:https://www.va.gov/disability/eligibility/hazardous-materials-exposure/agent-orange/

              On March 4, 2015 the Buffalo VARO denied my September 24,2012 claim for accrued benefits due to my husband’s 1151 HBP. The “examiner’s” report to deny the claim was ridiculous.The VA failed to consider the evidence and medical opinion from my FTCA case, thatI had from Dr. XXXXXX. I immediately filed CUE on the decision. Exhibit H

              On April 2, 2015 the VA awarded 10% under 1151, “hypertension for accrued benefits.” They gave an erroneous Effective date .

                                                                                                                                     Exhibit I                                   

But also stated “We have determined that there is no additional entitlement for accrued benefits for this award as the veteran was in receipt of benefits at the 100% rate at the effective date of this award.”

              This defies the whole point of General Counsel Precedent Opinion # 08-97         Exhibit  E above"

and so forth- I also added that :

"Monday, October 14^th, is the 25^th anniversary of my husband’s death, Rodney F. Simmons, who died due to VA health care itself,and Agent Orange conditions ,that were malpracticed on.If the VA had sought a medical  cause for his HBP, in the first place-November 1988,they could have treated him properly and he might certainly still be alive."

November 1988 is the proper EED for his HBP. They gave me the date of his 1151 100% P & T stroke.

There is no medical evidence whatsoever that ties in his HBP to his stroke. 

The VA medical opinion (Exhibit G) clearly shows that his medical care up to the Nov 1988 date, HBP diagnosis, and for the next 6 years, contained "multiple" deviations from acceptable VA health care, to include his  HBP

It ends with this statement : " All of the deviations hastened his death."

The link to the NAP  report is:

https://www.nap.edu/resource/25137/111318_VAO_summary_table.pdf

Under Table S-1 the "epidemiologic evidence is sufficient to conclude that there is a positive association." and than states again "There is sufficient evidence of an association between exposure to the chemicals of interest and the following health outcomes:

It lists some of the established AO presumptives, and includes Hypertention

and also MGUS ( monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance.)

I believe we did have a MGUS veteran here-but maybe on another site.....

If any MGUS vet falls under Nehmer, they too should file a claim for MGUS as due to AO and use the study from np/edu as well.

 

 

Edited October 14, 2019 by Berta
spelling