Ok Vike here you go: Service connection is no problem. In Jan 05 I had a stroke. In Feb/Mar 05 after Hospital, MRI and neurologist verifed that it was a stroke that was causing the paralysis of the left face, hand and foot. All three MEDICALLY DIAGNOISED this paralysis as Dejerine-Roussy Syndrome resulting from the Jan 2005 stroke.
The claim was submitted in Mar 05 less than 60 days from the occurance of the stroke. In the claim it was asked that a claim be established for the stroke, secondary to ALREADY SERVICE CONNECTED hypertension and DMII under CFR 38 disability code 8008. As per 8008 it was asked that a 100 percent rating be assigned for six months effective Mar 06. (8008 provides "Rate for six months as 100 percent then rate residuals). Claim was submitted with the MRI results, neurologist's treatment records, PCP treatment records and hospital records. All records provided that in Jan 2005 I suffered a right thalamic CVA. The neuro records and PCP records provided the diagnosis of dejerine-roussy and provided their objective findings of the paralysis caused by the dejerine-roussy syndrome. Neuro and PCP provided IMO's tying the stroke to my service connected hypertension and DMII. All of this was submitted with the claim.
Since the dejerine-roussy had already been diagnosised the claim also asked that at the end of the six months the claim for dejerine-roussy be established as residuals of and secondary to the Jan 2005 stroke. It was provided that the dejerine-roussy (along with medical diagnosis and IMO's) affected the left face, arm/hand and leg/foot and the objective findings as to the level of paralysis of each body section.
In July 05 a C&P was scheduled. C&P results provided that the stroke did occur, and I had paraslyses in the left face and upper and lower extermities with constant pain. One examiner opined that forward propeltion and push off power of left lower was extermely limited. muscle strength was 1/2 of 5 yada yada yada...........
In a July 05 Rating Decision it stated that " you reported that in Jan 05 you suffered a right thalamic CVA. During a VA examination you were objectively found to have ..........A REPEAT OF THE DOCS STUFF FROM THE C&P.............
As a result a rating of 10 percent is assigned for CVA with the residuals of Dejerine-Roussy syndrome effective February 2004 (NOW THIS IS A YEAR BEFORE THE STROKE HAPPENED AND THE CLAIM WAS FILED. I guess some would say they were being generous to me). A higher rating of 100 percent is not warranted due to "an absense of a current or recently active disease". THAT IS ALL IT SAID. NO OTHER REASON WHY THE 100 PERCENT FOR THE REQUIRED SIX MONTH PERIOD WAS NOT AWARDED; NO REASON WHY THEY DID NOT AWARD SEPERATE RATINGS FOR THE FACE, ARM/HAND AND LEG/FOOT AS REQUIRED BY CFR 38. NO MENTION WHY THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE (HOSPITAL RECORDS, MRI AND DOCTOR STATEMENTS WERE NOT ACCEPTED NO IF THEY WERE PROBATIVE OR NOT. NOTHING - NADA - JUST A HERE YOU GO BUD TAKE IT AND BE HAPPY.
End of Aug 05....... Dejerine-Roussy had increased to a point that I could not use my hand or foot. They were there, however, outside the constant unrelenting pain I could not tell where my hand and foot were, falling and limited to daytime movement because I had to watch my foot as it moved. Neuro provided an IMO style report in that he readdressed the original cause of the disease and his new objective findings and diagnosis of functional loss of use of foot and hand.
In an Aug 05 NOD I addressed the issues with the rating decision - I pointed out that 8008 simply stated Rate at six months - 100 percent. It did not provided any required time line for the stroke, although I could understand if the stroke occured over a year ago could be a limiting factor in assigning the 100 percent rating, my claim had been submitted within 60 days of the occurance of the stroke. I also argued the point that the rating decision of an absense of a current or recently active disease was crazy since the hospital report, mri's, neurologist report, treating physician and VA examiners had provided in their medical evidence statements and opinions provided that the stroked occured in Jan 05 nor would it have been possible for the stroke to still be occuring in July 05 during the C&P as accepted medical lit and doctrine provided that a stroke was sudden and lasting only from a few minuets to a max of 48 hours. As a matter of fact the radiologist and neuro doc provided that no evidence of prior or older infarcts was present (this was important to my future treatment.( I provided a bunch of other arguments such as what happened to my evidence and why was it not used to establish the award of the claim; why did they not provide seperate ratings for the face, hand and foot as required per 38 CFR etc.......Berta reviewed it.
Based upon the increase of paraylsis and new medical evidence being submitted with the NOD I also asked that they now consider the claim for residuals under (oops forgot the correct code) which provides that loss of use of one foot and on hand be rated as 100 percent along with a rating for the face.
Sent it all off with new doc reports and IMO's. In Jan 06 (4 months after submission of NOD) I got SOC which provided no further detail than that of the rating (it was a true cut and paste job). Still no reason why the medical evidence failed to establish the award nor why the absense of any contary evidence held by the VA was provided/referenced by the SOC if that is what they used to deny the claim. STILL NOTHING - NADA
Now don't take this wrong Vike - I do not believe you can explain their actions. Plenty of medical evidence exist to merrit this claim (hell they did service connect it even established an effective date 1 year prior to the submission of the claim). All evidence provides a diagnosis of Jan 2005 CVA, Dejerine-Roussy syndrome affecting left side (face, hand, foot) and the objective findings of the docs along with their fully rationalized IMO's. As of todate the VA has not refuted any of the evidence - they simply have provided a rating without providing any reasons or basis for their actions. I understand your comments about medical evidence (I have being doing this for a while). I did not submit a claim (or I should say my wife cause she did the original claim for me)without merit or a claim that could be called frivious in any way. SO HERE WE SIT STILL WAITING OUT THE RO TO SEE WHAT THEIR NEXT STEP WILL BE. So far they have refused me a DRO hearing at the RO cause at first they lost the request and would not accept the green mailer where they signed for it. Then they stated they have a heavy work load so they do not conduct any such hearings (hmmmm did not know heavy work loads over ruled US Code and US Regulations-guess you learn something new every day); they have failed to take action on two other claims that have now been pending for over 30 months (in response to my last inquiry they told me that 30 months was still well within the timeframe alloted for initial claims). Neither of the claims are out of developement cause they say the appeal must be resolved first (this is kind of backwards from most RO's) and on, and on, and on rolls the wheel. I just want the opportunity to sit face to face with the idiots. Nope I am not mad. The only way I can deal with the pain on a daily basis (narcotic drugs has no effect on dejerine roussy so they have not and will not be prescribed) is to read and re-read the rating decision and SOC and laugh. Now I do not expect you to attempt to provide an explanation for my situation nor understand it. I realize that you and others like you are usually dealing with RO's that are slow but somewhat competent. However, I did want all to realize that such things do occur and just because a vets presents such a story does not mean he has sat around on his butt wishing for a hand out. Although I have a legal and law enforcement background does not mean my claim is any more well grounded than any other veterans but I can assure you that my claim, evidence and all other factors were in order before this event unrolled itself. I told a summary of this story on the other vet site a while ago..... jez did I ever take a licking. You would have thought I kid napped their god, good ole SEC Nic and held him for ransom. Now just like the old folk tales we used to hear as children, you can believe me or not. If you do thanks for your support; If you don't God bless you and I really did not need your support any way cause believe it or not I do kinda know what I am doing I just have to get around an incompetent RO (this was not to you personally Vike it was just a general statement.) I spoke with the VAIG about this. I was told we don't investigate these items. This is a non-adverserial system inwhich you have specific rights...... before he could get any further, I fell to the floor and went into a non-stoppable laugh...... thought I was going to pee-pee in my pants. The better half had to nearly carry me out of the office cause I could not stop laughing. Makes me think about the current situation in which the Prez has put ole Sec Nic in charge of the commission to review VA health care hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha..... what the hell was he thinking? The wolf in charge of the hen house - what a novel concept.
Hopes this meets the mark and clears up the fact that I have not submitted claim lacking merit without any medical documentation.
Question
Ricky
Ok Vike here you go: Service connection is no problem. In Jan 05 I had a stroke. In Feb/Mar 05 after Hospital, MRI and neurologist verifed that it was a stroke that was causing the paralysis of the left face, hand and foot. All three MEDICALLY DIAGNOISED this paralysis as Dejerine-Roussy Syndrome resulting from the Jan 2005 stroke.
The claim was submitted in Mar 05 less than 60 days from the occurance of the stroke. In the claim it was asked that a claim be established for the stroke, secondary to ALREADY SERVICE CONNECTED hypertension and DMII under CFR 38 disability code 8008. As per 8008 it was asked that a 100 percent rating be assigned for six months effective Mar 06. (8008 provides "Rate for six months as 100 percent then rate residuals). Claim was submitted with the MRI results, neurologist's treatment records, PCP treatment records and hospital records. All records provided that in Jan 2005 I suffered a right thalamic CVA. The neuro records and PCP records provided the diagnosis of dejerine-roussy and provided their objective findings of the paralysis caused by the dejerine-roussy syndrome. Neuro and PCP provided IMO's tying the stroke to my service connected hypertension and DMII. All of this was submitted with the claim.
Since the dejerine-roussy had already been diagnosised the claim also asked that at the end of the six months the claim for dejerine-roussy be established as residuals of and secondary to the Jan 2005 stroke. It was provided that the dejerine-roussy (along with medical diagnosis and IMO's) affected the left face, arm/hand and leg/foot and the objective findings as to the level of paralysis of each body section.
In July 05 a C&P was scheduled. C&P results provided that the stroke did occur, and I had paraslyses in the left face and upper and lower extermities with constant pain. One examiner opined that forward propeltion and push off power of left lower was extermely limited. muscle strength was 1/2 of 5 yada yada yada...........
In a July 05 Rating Decision it stated that " you reported that in Jan 05 you suffered a right thalamic CVA. During a VA examination you were objectively found to have ..........A REPEAT OF THE DOCS STUFF FROM THE C&P.............
As a result a rating of 10 percent is assigned for CVA with the residuals of Dejerine-Roussy syndrome effective February 2004 (NOW THIS IS A YEAR BEFORE THE STROKE HAPPENED AND THE CLAIM WAS FILED. I guess some would say they were being generous to me). A higher rating of 100 percent is not warranted due to "an absense of a current or recently active disease". THAT IS ALL IT SAID. NO OTHER REASON WHY THE 100 PERCENT FOR THE REQUIRED SIX MONTH PERIOD WAS NOT AWARDED; NO REASON WHY THEY DID NOT AWARD SEPERATE RATINGS FOR THE FACE, ARM/HAND AND LEG/FOOT AS REQUIRED BY CFR 38. NO MENTION WHY THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE (HOSPITAL RECORDS, MRI AND DOCTOR STATEMENTS WERE NOT ACCEPTED NO IF THEY WERE PROBATIVE OR NOT. NOTHING - NADA - JUST A HERE YOU GO BUD TAKE IT AND BE HAPPY.
End of Aug 05....... Dejerine-Roussy had increased to a point that I could not use my hand or foot. They were there, however, outside the constant unrelenting pain I could not tell where my hand and foot were, falling and limited to daytime movement because I had to watch my foot as it moved. Neuro provided an IMO style report in that he readdressed the original cause of the disease and his new objective findings and diagnosis of functional loss of use of foot and hand.
In an Aug 05 NOD I addressed the issues with the rating decision - I pointed out that 8008 simply stated Rate at six months - 100 percent. It did not provided any required time line for the stroke, although I could understand if the stroke occured over a year ago could be a limiting factor in assigning the 100 percent rating, my claim had been submitted within 60 days of the occurance of the stroke. I also argued the point that the rating decision of an absense of a current or recently active disease was crazy since the hospital report, mri's, neurologist report, treating physician and VA examiners had provided in their medical evidence statements and opinions provided that the stroked occured in Jan 05 nor would it have been possible for the stroke to still be occuring in July 05 during the C&P as accepted medical lit and doctrine provided that a stroke was sudden and lasting only from a few minuets to a max of 48 hours. As a matter of fact the radiologist and neuro doc provided that no evidence of prior or older infarcts was present (this was important to my future treatment.( I provided a bunch of other arguments such as what happened to my evidence and why was it not used to establish the award of the claim; why did they not provide seperate ratings for the face, hand and foot as required per 38 CFR etc.......Berta reviewed it.
Based upon the increase of paraylsis and new medical evidence being submitted with the NOD I also asked that they now consider the claim for residuals under (oops forgot the correct code) which provides that loss of use of one foot and on hand be rated as 100 percent along with a rating for the face.
Sent it all off with new doc reports and IMO's. In Jan 06 (4 months after submission of NOD) I got SOC which provided no further detail than that of the rating (it was a true cut and paste job). Still no reason why the medical evidence failed to establish the award nor why the absense of any contary evidence held by the VA was provided/referenced by the SOC if that is what they used to deny the claim. STILL NOTHING - NADA
Now don't take this wrong Vike - I do not believe you can explain their actions. Plenty of medical evidence exist to merrit this claim (hell they did service connect it even established an effective date 1 year prior to the submission of the claim). All evidence provides a diagnosis of Jan 2005 CVA, Dejerine-Roussy syndrome affecting left side (face, hand, foot) and the objective findings of the docs along with their fully rationalized IMO's. As of todate the VA has not refuted any of the evidence - they simply have provided a rating without providing any reasons or basis for their actions. I understand your comments about medical evidence (I have being doing this for a while). I did not submit a claim (or I should say my wife cause she did the original claim for me)without merit or a claim that could be called frivious in any way. SO HERE WE SIT STILL WAITING OUT THE RO TO SEE WHAT THEIR NEXT STEP WILL BE. So far they have refused me a DRO hearing at the RO cause at first they lost the request and would not accept the green mailer where they signed for it. Then they stated they have a heavy work load so they do not conduct any such hearings (hmmmm did not know heavy work loads over ruled US Code and US Regulations-guess you learn something new every day); they have failed to take action on two other claims that have now been pending for over 30 months (in response to my last inquiry they told me that 30 months was still well within the timeframe alloted for initial claims). Neither of the claims are out of developement cause they say the appeal must be resolved first (this is kind of backwards from most RO's) and on, and on, and on rolls the wheel. I just want the opportunity to sit face to face with the idiots. Nope I am not mad. The only way I can deal with the pain on a daily basis (narcotic drugs has no effect on dejerine roussy so they have not and will not be prescribed) is to read and re-read the rating decision and SOC and laugh. Now I do not expect you to attempt to provide an explanation for my situation nor understand it. I realize that you and others like you are usually dealing with RO's that are slow but somewhat competent. However, I did want all to realize that such things do occur and just because a vets presents such a story does not mean he has sat around on his butt wishing for a hand out. Although I have a legal and law enforcement background does not mean my claim is any more well grounded than any other veterans but I can assure you that my claim, evidence and all other factors were in order before this event unrolled itself. I told a summary of this story on the other vet site a while ago..... jez did I ever take a licking. You would have thought I kid napped their god, good ole SEC Nic and held him for ransom. Now just like the old folk tales we used to hear as children, you can believe me or not. If you do thanks for your support; If you don't God bless you and I really did not need your support any way cause believe it or not I do kinda know what I am doing I just have to get around an incompetent RO (this was not to you personally Vike it was just a general statement.) I spoke with the VAIG about this. I was told we don't investigate these items. This is a non-adverserial system inwhich you have specific rights...... before he could get any further, I fell to the floor and went into a non-stoppable laugh...... thought I was going to pee-pee in my pants. The better half had to nearly carry me out of the office cause I could not stop laughing. Makes me think about the current situation in which the Prez has put ole Sec Nic in charge of the commission to review VA health care hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha..... what the hell was he thinking? The wolf in charge of the hen house - what a novel concept.
Hopes this meets the mark and clears up the fact that I have not submitted claim lacking merit without any medical documentation.
Edited by RickyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
5
4
3
Popular Days
Mar 9
8
Mar 8
3
Mar 7
1
Top Posters For This Question
Ricky 5 posts
Vike17 4 posts
sixthscents 3 posts
Popular Days
Mar 9 2007
8 posts
Mar 8 2007
3 posts
Mar 7 2007
1 post
11 answers to this question
Recommended Posts