tdiu When Filing For Tdiu

[Guest jangrin]

When filing for TDIU, the CFR states that the patient must be rated for one condition at least at 60% or one condtion for 40% combined with additional condition.

4.16 Total disability ratings for compensation based on unemployability of the individual. (a) For the above purpose of one 60 percent disability, or one 40 percent disability in combination, the following will be considered as one disability: (2) Disabilities resulting from common etiology or a single accident,

Does this means that if a patient has DMII, HTN and PN does it consider this common etiology for TDIU purposes or does one of these condition have to be rated at lesat 40%. individualy? Even though the DMII caused the other as secondary.

Thank you,

[Berta]

Those 60 % criteria are what triggers the VA to consider TDIU.

However there is nothing I know of on the TDIU form 21-8940 not in any specific VA regulation that prohibits a vet from filing a TDIU form regardless of what % SC they have.

I tested this 2 years ago. A vet I helped get 100% sent info to me about another vet.

The other vet had No service connected disability at all.

Based on limited info I sent the other vet a TDIU form.

He was awarded TDIU in a startling 4 months from start to finish by the same RO who has had my AO claim for 4 years.

Why did he get this fast award?

He had a few years of PTSD treatment, medication, and diagnosis from a private doctor-

he also had fully verifiable stressors.I suggested buddy statement on one of them -dont know if he got a buddy statement or not.

I forget if he got SSA for PTSD -his copies of his medical evidence was sent in along with his TDIU form. TDIU or 100% for PTSD -I forget what the award letter said.

[Pete53]

Alex Humpfrey got a Veteran 100% for a 10% rating. The key is that there is always a way to get it if the Veteran cannot work due to a Service Connected Disability.

[Berta]

It happens because the vet had significant medical evidence and they are unemployable solely due to SC.

My husband is also good example- he was 30% PTSD SC from 1983.

He filed for higher PTSD rating-1991 1992? forget when ---

At some point he sent a TDIU form-I have never seen it acknowledged or refered to in any VA decision.

He also had 100% PTSD from SSA-EED 1991- that award too was never refered to in any VA decision.

After he died the VA continued to deny his claim- it was his wish that I continue after his death-his PTSD claim and his Sec 1151 in which he predicted his death due to VA health care.

The Sec 1151 claim was awarded to me-as DIC and the VA awarded Rod posthumous 100% P & T for PTSD 3 years after he died-retro back to 1991- dead due to VA health care.

They forgot to award SMC -my present CUEs are on that.

100% Direct SC plus 100% and over Sec 1151 (medical screw up) equals SMC.

General Counsel says it does too- GC Pres Op #30-94 I think)

BVA says it to in decisions at the BVA.

"Every element in any way affecting the probative value to be assigned to the evidence in each individual claim must be thoroughly and conscientiously studied by each member of the rating board in the light of the established policies of the Department of Veterans Affairs to the end that decisions will be equitable and just as contemplated by the requirements of the law.

From:

http://www.warms.vba.va.gov/Regs/38CFR/BOO.../S4_3.DOC"

I fought over that reg for almost 4 years in those past claims.

I have fought now for almost 4 years again.

The VA has failed to comply with this reg in regards to my medical evidence up to 2005 (2 IMOs)(cost $2000)because my own POA

made sure they didn't.

And my POA actually stated in 2006 letter to me regarding my third IMO that the VA's response might well be the same as their prior VA responses-

the VA has ignored these IMOS and as recent as Dec 2006 claims they never even got the IMOS.Total cost now $4,000.

My POA obviously thinks that the additional IMO will be totally ignored too.

Vet reps and orgs have no right whatsoever to opine on, reject or diminish our medical evidence-especially from a real doctor-nor any right to have a "lengthy" conference with a DRO as in my case regarding my IMos (documented by VA)and come out of that conference with a clear misrepresntation of what I was told.

Not to mention that the VA still-after this socalled lengthy conference still ignored the IMOs as if they had never seen them or heard of them at all.

Of course this is but one part of my complaint to the person who pays my POA-the Governor-state of New York.

Alex says I should dump them-

but what about the other POA vets and widows they are screwing around with too-

I would not dream of dumping them. They are going to start learning VA 101.

Edited March 11, 2007 by Berta

[LarryJ]

Jangrin,

It would be my thinking that the DMII, the associated PN and HTN, would be considered one and the same for rating purposes......more than one diagnoses, but all of the same etiology.

[Guest jangrin]

Jangrin,

It would be my thinking that the DMII, the associated PN and HTN, would be considered one and the same for rating purposes......more than one diagnoses, but all of the same etiology.

Larry that is also my thinking.

DMII 20%

PN 20%

HTN 10%

Combined they would meet the 40% for TDIU requirement but id seperate etiology they would not. Is there anyone that knows for sure on this?

Jangrin

[Guest jangrin]

THAT'S the part that I do not understand..... "all of the same etiology". Does that mean all the same SCed condition, like in combat? Or, same wound/same injury/same disability/primary and secondary disabilities combined ?

PLEASE, explain this to me. Hmmmmmm ?????

Etiology means from the same source. DMII is the cause of many conditions. It is possible to have numerous conditions at 10% or 20% caused frim DMII., but not have a single condition rated at the required 40% needed for TDIU. So if they say they are from the same cause it is good for the vet, but if they say they are serperate processes and therefore rated seperately it would/could keep a very disabled vet from getting TDIU.

We certainly need clarification for sure.

jangrin

Edited March 11, 2007 by jangrin