more AO Hypertenion awards

[Berta]

"Citation Nr: 20007929
Decision Date: 01/30/20	Archive Date: 01/30/20

DOCKET NO. 06-26 807
DATE: January 30, 2020

ORDER

Service connection for hypertension is granted.

An effective date of June 1, 2004 for a total rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is granted.

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for a heart disease is remanded.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran was exposed to Agent Orange and herbicides during his service in the Republic of Vietnam.

2. The competent and probative evidence establishes that the Veteran’s hypertension is due to his exposure to Agent Orange and herbicides from his service in Vietnam.

3. From June 1, 2004 onward, the Veteran was unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of his service-connected disabilities.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files1/20007929.txt

I used the same study he did for my pending claim.I already have posted here how to win this type of claim.

This is the third award I found and I am sure there are many more at the BVA.

Just found another:

https://www.va.gov/vetapp19/files7/19153386.txt

The veteran was exposed to AO in Thailand.

"ORDER

Service connection for hypertension is granted.

Service connection for bladder cancer is granted.

Service connection for chronic myeloid leukemia is granted."

This case is an outstanding one, showing nothing is impossible and the veteran had his ducks in a row and well armed them with evidence.

 

 

[Berta]

"REASONS FOR REMAND

1. Entitlement to service connection for HBP, to include as secondary to service-connected CAD and to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents

The Veteran’s service personnel records reflect that he served aboard the Monticello (LSD 35), which is currently on the VA list of ships associated with exposure to herbicide agents in Vietnam.   In addition, the evidence indicates the Veteran was aboard when the ship was in Vietnamese waters.  As such, VA concedes the Veteran’s in-service exposure to herbicide agents.

The Veteran’s representative asserts that the November 2018 National Academy of Sciences update has upgraded hypertension to the “sufficient” category from “limited or suggestive”, thus supporting a medical nexus between the Veteran’s hypertension and herbicide agent exposure.  As the evidence does not include a compete medical opinion as to whether the Veteran’s hypertension is related to his presumed exposure to herbicide agents, the Board finds a VA examination is necessary to properly adjudicate the issue on appeal."

https://www.va.gov/vetapp19/files12/19196192.txt

Thisis another remand, whereby the veteran claimed HBP due to AO, and the BVA itself mentioned  the NAM study ( aka NAS/IMO study) . It is a long read due to many other claimed disabilities but eve withut a formal AO HBP regulation, the BVA has recognized the AO HBP study.

This i another remand, citing the same report:

"Obtain a medical opinion to determine the etiology of the Veteran’s hypertension. If the Board’s questions cannot be answered without a physical examination, one should be scheduled. The examiner should answer the following question: Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater) that the Veteran’s hypertension was caused by his presumed exposure to herbicide agents during service? Why or why not? In so doing, the examiner should review Veterans and Agent Orange Update 11 (2018), in which the National Academies of Medicine concluded that there was sufficient evidence of an association between exposure to herbicide agents and hypertension."

https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files1/20005113.txt

In some cases of HBP the veteran could file the claim as secondary to their AO DMII and/or AO IHD if those

disabilities have been granted under AO regs as a direct exposure claim.As with mostly all secondarys, they will need a medical opinion for the link.

BUT ,they also can use the NAM(NAS/IOM) report to claim under that additional basis.

Any claimant can file on more than one theory of entitlement.

A personal friend of mine who is a member here  was very negative about my AO DMII claim. As I said before - the VA never diagnosed or treated my husband for DMII. My daughter while still in the Military insisted I re open my 1151 DIC claim for direct SC death.I finally did-2003 and my vet rep said it would have to go to the CAVC, as neither the RO or the BVA would ever award it....And he felt the CAVC would deny it too.

Negativity INSPIRES me. I won at the BVA. The RO failed to properly consider my evidence.

My husband's  DMII was malpracticd on but I certainly filed , not for 1151-I already had that,but under direct SC.

The friend I mentioned said I could lose my DIC because I was a big VA critic , which my VARO knew.

I still am. I mentioned to him that at that time I had received 1151 under malpractice of multiple issues, and proved in my FTCA case, that every single issue and disability the VA caused had also caused or contributed to my husband's death.

The VA would have to CUE themseves on 4 separate theories of entitlement to DIC under 1151.

because each one provides me with proper DIC .

However this is my long point - a claimant whether veteran or widow/widower of a veteran ,can and often should claim more then one theory of entitlement.

Here is another AO HBP remand;

Obtain a medical opinion to determine the etiology of the Veteran’s hypertension. If the Board’s questions cannot be answered without a physical examination, one should be scheduled. The examiner should answer the following question: Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater) that the Veteran’s hypertension was caused by his presumed exposure to herbicide agents during service? Why or why not? In so doing, the examiner should review Veterans and Agent Orange Update 11 (2018), in which the National Academies of Medicine concluded that there was sufficient evidence of an association between exposure to herbicide agents and hypertension.

In the AO forum I have the  study link as well as how I shaped my claim.I even went over the comp charts from 1988 to 1994 , the rating sheets, and told them, with my mathematical evidence, how much they owe me.

 

 

 

 

https://www.va.gov/vetapp18/files1/1806265.txt

and 

https://www.va.gov/vetapp20/files1/20005113.txt

 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Berta
had to keep reloading the site???

[Berta]

I asked this in my AO Thailand vet win post today but best to ask separately:

Have Any of you filed for AO Hypertension with the report????

2006 NAS/IOM/NAM- it is linked here somewhere

As you can tell from my past articles  here  on the report here and this CAVC decision- there are no regulations for AO HBP(HTN) but I feel I made a very strong medical argument on this to Secretary Wilkie and I expect him to provide a decision and regulation on it, as a new AO presumptive.

If he does not decide it to be a new presumptive,  and goes against the report , I will sure raise some Hell! Legal hell that is.....