Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

VA Disability Claims Articles

Ask Your VA Claims Question | Current Forum Posts Search | Rules | View All Forums
VA Disability Articles | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users

  • hohomepage-banner-2024-2.png

  • 27-year-anniversary-leaderboard.png

    advice-disclaimer.jpg

  • donate-be-a-hero.png

  • 0

AO Hypertension award

Rate this question


Berta

Question

As you all know the recent Agent Orange Defense Dept Bill does not include HBP.

I found another recent HBP due to AO award at the BVA- there are more, and some I already posted here-

 

"In the December 2019 examination, the examiner provided a positive nexus for the Veteran’s hypertension. In support, she explained that according to medical literature, the Veteran’s hypertension is more likely due to his exposure to herbicides during service. She cited a news article that reviewed health impacts between Agent Orange exposure and hypertension. 
 
The Board finds this opinion to have probative value. While it was somewhat conclusory as it relies on the news article, the Board notes that it is the only opinion that addresses hypertension based on herbicides exposure. As such, the Board finds the opinion to have some probative value. 
 
Moreover, the Board notes that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has found that there is “limited or suggestive evidence of an association between” hypertension and exposure to herbicide agents (such as Agent Orange) based on a recent statistical study. See Determinations Concerning Illnesses Discussed in National Academy of Sciences Report: Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2012, 79 Fed. Reg. 20308 (Apr. 11, 2014); see also 38 U.S.C. § 1116 (b) (2012). The category “limited or suggestive evidence of an association” means that the “evidence suggests an association between exposure to herbicides and the outcome, but a firm conclusion is limited because chance, bias, and confounding could not be ruled out with confidence.” Id. 
 
A more recent study by NAS released on November 15, 2018, indicates that “[t]he latest in a series of congressionally mandated biennial reviews of the evidence of health problems that may be linked to exposure to Agent Orange and other herbicides used during the Vietnam War found sufficient evidence of an association for hypertension.” NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, Hypertension Upgraded in Latest Biennial Review of Research on Health Problems in Veterans That May Be Linked to Agent Orange Exposure During Vietnam War (Nov. 15, 2018), available at: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=25137."
 
 
In this case the C & P examiner gave a probative statement to award the claim. It still was denied at the RO level.
 
The veteran or their rep should have sent them the actual report-it could have been awarded at the RO level,if their RO can read.
 
I have posted a link to the National Academy Of Science Report , that many vets have used, in order for them to attain, with proof of AO exposure, a SC rating for Hypertension.
I used this same report for my HBP accrued claim, but the VA said they do not have that claim, I am used to them lying, and will need to find the time to pressure them to find it or file it all over again.
 
Due to my accrued widow status and the fact it is a Nehmer claim, the EED ( 1998) will be the same anyhow.
 
If an AO vet has "essential" hypertension or no other known cause for it, and they were exposed to AO,they should file the claim using the above most recent report that states the "sufficient" association of HBP to AO has been determined.
 
Unlike former Sec Shulkin Sec Wilkie sent my VARO a coy of my letter to him, making a strong argument why HBP should be an AO presumptive.
 
Deemed as a "sufficient association" by NAS -that is a higher level of association than many of the established presumptives have.
 
If VA has never attributed your HBP to any other cause, and you are an incountry veteran ( to inlude BWV AO vets),  they would be hard pressed to suddenly find 
some other NSC cause for the HBP,  but they might try.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Edited by Berta
added more
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

The report is cited in these links:

https://www.stripes.com/news/new-review-finds-sufficient-evidence-linking-hypertension-to-agent-orange-exposure-1.557253

 

 
I have been unable to find the actual report but it must be somewhere-
but those links above prove the premise of it.
 
Yes,NVLSP will review your AO claim, when you get a decision on it.But as past AO  reviews show, it is Footnote One on the Nehmer Court order ( I have lots of info on this aspect of Nehmer, available in a search  at our  AO forum.
Footnote One is the Essense of Nehmer.
 
If this is your initial claim for HBP, NVLSP might check to see of he EED is correct, but might not.
 
NVLSP reviewed my AO IHD EED.
 
Although my husband's IIHD was never diagnosed or treated by VA but was part of my FTCA/1151 cases, they (VA) gave me the most favorable date they could, as it was based a C & P entry, that in spite of having all of my husband's C file and medical records, I had never been given a copy of that specific C & P exam.I guess the MF removed it when I filed my wrongful death claim.*
Two VA's tried to cover up my husband's disabilities and their negligence, but I had proven to the OGC that his symptoms of  IHD showed up in 1988, in VA documents and records, yet were never diagnosed or treated.
What I did find that in 1988 he had a heart attack while employed at th VA, per an EKG, and they diagnosed him instead with a sinus condition.
I found a VA X ray of his sinuses that were clear.
Their prescription of a high dosage of sudafed for the next 8 years caused the OGC to determine that this contributed to his HBP and to his death, one of multiple malpractice charges I had made, and proved.
 
AO is the most important issue of my life regarding veterans.
This AM I read a few recent BVA decision on AO vets which could have easily been granted at the RO level.
It is a disgrace that many ROs still dont have a clue on M21-1MR and even on Nehmer.
 
Nehmer relies on Footnote one, for the proper EED.
Blue Water Navy AO vets recently won another suit filed by NVLSP, ad now they can get Footnote One retro.
I will post again the email from my NVLSP contact lawyer:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

It is explained in this thread and within 10 pages here under a search of Footnote One:

Footnote One Nehmer (A0) - VA Disability Compensation Benefits Claims Research Forum - VA Disability Compensation Benefits Forums - HadIt.com Veterans

Probably thread is too long for many here to read:  so I copied that part of his email to me:

Rick Spataro, Head Nehmer lawyer of NVLSP, explained Footnote One to me this way in email as soon as the Regulations were being prepared for the 3 new AO presumptives in 2010:

 

As for your second question, if the VA should have coded IHD in a rating decision, the claim that resulted in the rating decision could be considered a claim for benefits for IHD under footnote 1 of the Final Stipulation and Order in Nehmer. It basically depends on the timing of the claim, rating decision, and evidence received while the claim was pending. It may also depend on the rules in the Manual M21-1 regarding coding that were in effect at the time of the claim.

Typically, though, the following example would be accurate: A veteran filed a claim for SC for a low back disability on May 1, 1990. The VA obtained medical evidence showing a diagnosis of IHD in the development of that claim. The VA issued a rating decision on April 1, 1991, but does not code IHD (list IHD as “NSC” on the code sheet of the rating decision). Under footnote 1, since the condition should have been coded in the April 1, 1991 decision, the May 1, 1990 claim should be considered a claim for SC for IHD under Nehmer. “

As I mentioned here before I was a Footnote One Nehmer claimant.

VA "SHOULD have" coded my husband's IHD but didn't because they malpracticed on it.

The medical evidence I produced gave the claim a favorable EED of 1988, for AO IHD.

In Most cases however under Nehmer II most vets had one of the new presumptives listed in past rating decisions, with a diagnostic code, rating and a NSC, instead of SC which is what a successful AO claim produced as SC, under Footnote One Nehmer, if they had a now presumptive AO disability per Nehmer II.

I stress Nehmer II, of 2010, because it changed Nehmer 1.

Footnote One is the most important part of Nehmer II. Next to the three presumptives VA added in 2010.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Has anyone here filed for HBP due to their AO exposure?

If so did you use the same NAS report I used for my accrued claim for AO HBP?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use