Jump to content



Search



Toggle shoutbox Shoutbox Open the Shoutbox in a popup

@  Tbird : (22 November 2014 - 04:54 PM) Tbird Accepted To 2015 Conference: V-Wise: Another Entrepreneurship Project Of The Whitman School Of Management Http://ow.ly/ej9Qg
@  Tbird : (22 November 2014 - 04:13 PM) Arng11 Thank You For Your Contribution To Our Funding Campaign.
@  britton : (22 November 2014 - 02:57 PM) Thank You Ms T For Starting This Web Site For All Veterans, You Helpd Me And My Family And I'll Be Forever Gratful To You & Hadit.com
@  Tbird : (22 November 2014 - 08:19 AM) Thank You All For Helping With The Funding The Site. It Is Really Helping!
@  Tbird : (22 November 2014 - 08:18 AM) Britton Pm Me And I. Can Check This Out For You
@  britton : (22 November 2014 - 06:44 AM) What Does ''you Missed Your Quota For Postives Votes Today'' Mean??
@  coriemboh : (19 November 2014 - 08:29 AM) Hold Time For Peggy Was Approximately 1 Minute. That Was 17 Minutes Ago. They Really Need To Change This Hold Music.
@  Tbird : (17 November 2014 - 02:42 PM) Stretch Thanks For The Extra Contribution To Our Fundraiser This Month.
@  maxwell18 : (16 November 2014 - 09:04 PM) I Still Have To Bitch About The Navy Hosp Cutting My Meds By 2/3 On My Norco. I Contacted Customer Service Or What Ever You Want To Call It Who In Turn Contacted The Navy Hosp Pensacola Commander Who In Turn Did Nothing. Thanks To All The People That Are Affair Of There Jobs And I Feel That Medical Malpractice Should Come Into Place. I Guess Just Do What Ever They Want To Because They Can, But Don't Give A Sh T For The Vets That Suppose To Being Supporting From All The Military  organizations. This Is Not The Way They Have Been Trained And Promised To Do. 
@  carlie : (16 November 2014 - 11:26 AM) Delayed Onset Tinnitus - Ref To Va Training Letter 10-028 - Link - Http://veteranclaims.wordpress.com/2014/05/06/single-Judge-Application-Va-Training-Letter-10-028-Delayed-Onset-Tinnitus/
@  carlie : (16 November 2014 - 11:03 AM) Here's A Good Tinnitus Link To Check Out From M21-1 Change Dated Jan 10,2014 - Http://veteranclaims.wordpress.com/tag/section-B-Duty-Military-Occupational-Specialty-Mos-Noise-Exposure-Listing-Fast-Letter-10-35-Tinnitus-Hearing-Loss-Vbms-Rating-Decision-Tools/
@  Asiadaug : (16 November 2014 - 02:08 AM) "rolled" Not Ruled! :)
@  Asiadaug : (16 November 2014 - 02:07 AM) Thanks. I Have Seen The Fast Ltr 10-35 And Have Seen Cases Where The Va Has Apparently Agreed That Tinnitus Can Have Delayed Onset. I Did Not In Looking Over The Fast Ltr See Where They Had Ruled 10-028 Into That. And, I Am Not Sure In The Vas Issuance Of ‘policy’ Type Letters How They Might Roll In Previous Instructions Into Newer Ones. Maybe There Is Some Intranet Traceability Capability? I Was Just Curious As There ‘appeared’ To Be Conspicuous Absence Of That 10-028. I Am Assuming 10-028 Was Written In 2010. But It May Be I Should Not Assume Anything.
@  carlie : (15 November 2014 - 05:56 PM) Asiadaug - You Might Be Looking For Fast Letter 10-35, Http://www.hadit.com/forums/topic/40962-Va-Fl-10-35/ Also Check Out This Link To Links For Delayed Onset Tinnitus - They All Refer Back To Fast Letter 10-35, Https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=Chrome-Instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=Utf-8#q=Tinnitus, Delayed Onset, Va Fast Letter
@  Tbird : (15 November 2014 - 07:50 AM) Asiadaug Searched All Over For Va Training Letter 10-028 But No Luck So Far.
@  Asiadaug : (15 November 2014 - 02:12 AM) Several Cases I've Run Across Mention Va Training Letter 10-028 With Apparent Discussion About Delayed Onset Of Tinnitus. I Have Been Unable To Locate That Trng Ltr. Any Suggestions?
@  Tbird : (12 November 2014 - 05:56 PM) Stretch Thanks For Contributing To Our Fundraising Campairg
@  Tbird : (12 November 2014 - 04:01 AM) Atomicwidow Thank Your For Donating To Our Funding Campaign.
@  Tbird : (11 November 2014 - 07:00 AM) Veterans Day 2014 - Veterans Thank You For Your Service And Your Sacrifice.
@  Tbird : (10 November 2014 - 07:19 AM) Semper Fi Marines

Photo
- - - - -

Alcoholism /abuse As A Secondary


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
8 replies to this topic

#1 Raven

 
Raven

    E-3 Seaman

  • Seaman
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts
 

Posted 20 February 2006 - 12:28 PM

Anyone heard anything of alcoholism or alcohol abuse as a secondary to depression? If one had this diagnosis, can health problems caused by alcohol abuse also be secondary (IE liver, etc)?

#2 Guest_Berta_*GuestMember

 
Guest_Berta_*GuestMember
  • Guests
 

Posted 20 February 2006 - 01:33 PM

Alcohol abuse Secondary to PTSD- granted:

http://www.va.gov/ve...es5/0529097.txt

This is a successful widow's DIC claim- alcoholism secondary to anxiety-yet the veteran had sigificant medical evidence of SC depression too--
http://www.va.gov/ve...es1/9607996.txt

This statement from a denied BVA claim states what the VA looks for in any disability that may be secondary to SC alcoholism-

"Secondary Service Connection

Disabilities secondary to alcoholism are not covered by the
“willful misconduct” bar. Regulations state that “[o]rganic
diseases and disabilities which are a secondary result of the
chronic use of alcohol as a beverage, whether out of
compulsion or otherwise, will not be considered of willful
misconduct origin.” For claims submitted prior to November
1990, disabilities secondary to alcoholism were not covered
by the “willful misconduct” bar, and compensation was
available. Effective November 1990, however, 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 1131 was amended for the express purpose of “preclud[ing]
payment of compensation for certain secondary effects arising
from willful misconduct,” including “injuries or disease
incurred during service or the result of ...the abuse of
alcohol.” As amended, 38 U.S.C.A. § 1131 now provides that
“no compensation shall be paid if the disability is a result
of the [appellant’s] own willful misconduct or abuse of
alcohol or drugs.” As a result, 38 C.F.R. § 3.301(3)(d) was
promulgated to provide that an injury or disease incurred
during active duty shall not be deemed to have been incurred
in the line of duty if such injury or disease was a result of
the abuse of alcohol or drugs by the person on whose service
benefits are claimed.

As noted, the statutory amendment applies only to claims
filed after October 31, 1990. Here, however, the appellant
initially asserted claims of entitlement to service
connection for liver disease, psychiatric disability,
gastritis and peptic ulcer disease, all as secondary to
alcoholism, in his Substantive Appeal in support of his claim
of entitlement to service connection for alcoholism, which
was received by the RO&IC in July 1993. As there is no legal
entitlement to service connection on a secondary basis for
disabilities arising from the abuse of alcohol, the claims of
service connection for liver disease, psychiatric disability,
gastritis and peptic ulcer disease are without legal merit.
Sabonis.

In addition, the Board notes that in April 1996, the Board
received a private medical report that was not accompanied by
a waiver of consideration by the RO&IC. In a written
statement dated in that same month, the appellant’s
representative noted this report but did not waive initial
RO&IC consideration. Because alcohol dependence is deemed by
statute to be the result of willful misconduct and cannot
itself be service connected, and because the veteran’s claims
for service connection for disabilities as secondary to
alcoholism were filed subsequent to November 1990, these
claims lack legal merit. " (meaning this specific claim) from:

http://www.va.gov/ve...es3/9626118.txt

Basically if medical evidence finds any disability from alcoholism is Secondary to another SC disability- then there is potential to service connect the disability from alcohol as secondary.

#3 carlie

 
carlie

    Moderator/Admin/HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22280 posts
 

Posted 20 February 2006 - 02:04 PM

Berta,
OK now how about this:

Since the BVA is stating,
"Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Board concludes that
the veteran's sexual dysfunction disorder is proximately due
to his service-connected PTSD. Thus service connection for
that disorder is warranted."

Does this open it up for us females to get granted this same benefit due to our PTSD ?

Sexual dysfunction is not limited to reproduction ??

carlie

#4 Raven

 
Raven

    E-3 Seaman

  • Seaman
  • PipPipPip
  • 35 posts
 

Posted 20 February 2006 - 03:50 PM

I confused
So if one drinks like a fish everyday because they have major depression, they can file a claim for SC alcohol abuse as a secondary, and if granted, they do not get compensation ( a 0% rating I guess).

And if they are granted SC for alcohol abuse as a secondary, and down the road they have health problems from drinking (liver problems from the abuse), they can also file a claim claiming SC liver problems from alcohol abuse, which was granted as a SC because they are depressed? Would that warrent a rating other that 0% for the liver problems?

I hope I did not confuse anyone, just trying to explain my question

#5 Guest_Jim S._*GuestMember

 
Guest_Jim S._*GuestMember
  • Guests
 

Posted 20 February 2006 - 04:39 PM

Berta,
OK now how about this:

Since the BVA is stating,
"Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Board concludes that
the veteran's sexual dysfunction disorder is proximately due
to his service-connected PTSD. Thus service connection for
that disorder is warranted."

Does this open it up for us females to get granted this same benefit due to our PTSD ?

Sexual dysfunction is not limited to reproduction ??

carlie

Berta: I'm not trying to say that women whould not be so qualified , I am just trying to put some input to why their may be difficulty in it for a women.

The BVA is not ruling on a physical problem with guys plumbing, its that his electrical circuite can not tell the valve to turn on for the delivery mechanism to become a functional device.

Another analogy, A fire truck arrive to a fire, the fire chief tells the fire truck pumper attendant to turn on the pumper, but de doesn't, because he doesn't, no water can get to the hose to charge the system for use.

If it is shown that the hose can be charged but their is still a delivery problem, I doubt the BVA would have ruled as it did.

I gues in a womens case, she would have to show that due to PTSD the delivery recepticle is broken and none usable in the present condition. If it was otherwise found serviceable, then they to might find it diffecult to be awarded.

Again, my analogy is not to be argumentative but for open discussion on the problems defending a claim of this nature.

Jim S. :P

#6 carlie

 
carlie

    Moderator/Admin/HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22280 posts
 

Posted 20 February 2006 - 07:54 PM

Jim,
This is only my opinion.
If sex ( because of PTSD ) can't begin in my brain -- taint never gonna happen
with my body.
If it doesn't work -- it doesn't work -- whether male or female.
Any women out there have an opinion on this ?
carlie

#7 jimlane1949

 
jimlane1949

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • First Class Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 121 posts
 

Posted 20 February 2006 - 08:04 PM

Alcohol abuse Secondary to PTSD- granted:

http://www.va.gov/ve...es5/0529097.txt

This is a successful widow's DIC claim- alcoholism secondary to anxiety-yet the veteran had sigificant medical evidence of SC depression too--
http://www.va.gov/ve...es1/9607996.txt

This statement from a denied BVA claim states what the VA looks for in any disability that may be secondary to SC alcoholism-

"Secondary Service Connection

Disabilities secondary to alcoholism are not covered by the
“willful misconduct” bar. Regulations state that “[o]rganic
diseases and disabilities which are a secondary result of the
chronic use of alcohol as a beverage, whether out of
compulsion or otherwise, will not be considered of willful
misconduct origin.” For claims submitted prior to November
1990, disabilities secondary to alcoholism were not covered
by the “willful misconduct” bar, and compensation was
available. Effective November 1990, however, 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 1131 was amended for the express purpose of “preclud[ing]
payment of compensation for certain secondary effects arising
from willful misconduct,” including “injuries or disease
incurred during service or the result of ...the abuse of
alcohol.” As amended, 38 U.S.C.A. § 1131 now provides that
“no compensation shall be paid if the disability is a result
of the [appellant’s] own willful misconduct or abuse of
alcohol or drugs.” As a result, 38 C.F.R. § 3.301(3)(d) was
promulgated to provide that an injury or disease incurred
during active duty shall not be deemed to have been incurred
in the line of duty if such injury or disease was a result of
the abuse of alcohol or drugs by the person on whose service
benefits are claimed.

As noted, the statutory amendment applies only to claims
filed after October 31, 1990. Here, however, the appellant
initially asserted claims of entitlement to service
connection for liver disease, psychiatric disability,
gastritis and peptic ulcer disease, all as secondary to
alcoholism, in his Substantive Appeal in support of his claim
of entitlement to service connection for alcoholism, which
was received by the RO&IC in July 1993. As there is no legal
entitlement to service connection on a secondary basis for
disabilities arising from the abuse of alcohol, the claims of
service connection for liver disease, psychiatric disability,
gastritis and peptic ulcer disease are without legal merit.
Sabonis.

In addition, the Board notes that in April 1996, the Board
received a private medical report that was not accompanied by
a waiver of consideration by the RO&IC. In a written
statement dated in that same month, the appellant’s
representative noted this report but did not waive initial
RO&IC consideration. Because alcohol dependence is deemed by
statute to be the result of willful misconduct and cannot
itself be service connected, and because the veteran’s claims
for service connection for disabilities as secondary to
alcoholism were filed subsequent to November 1990, these
claims lack legal merit. " (meaning this specific claim) from:

http://www.va.gov/ve...es3/9626118.txt

Basically if medical evidence finds any disability from alcoholism is Secondary to another SC disability- then there is potential to service connect the disability from alcohol as secondary.

Will smokers get the nod also?

#8 frosty69

 
frosty69

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • First Class Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 184 posts
 

Posted 20 February 2006 - 09:27 PM

this statement really gets me;

However, when the determinative issue involves a
question of medical causation, only individuals possessing
specialized training and knowledge are competent to render an
opinion. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492 (1992).

most of the jerks at the VARO's, don't have any specialized training and knowledge in medical causation and are not competent to render an medical opinion, but they do it all the time, then people wonder why the veteran is on a uneven playing field, and get the above quotes on all decisions, that the veteran is a lay person, and we know we are, but so are most of the people who determine our claims. I have had these people rebuffed a doctors favorable opinion, by saying that the doctor didn't have all my medical files in front of him/her, so they couldn't make a decision like that, but if the doctor rules against you, then that is fine with the VARO's, with no questions asked.

#9 Guest_Berta_*GuestMember

 
Guest_Berta_*GuestMember
  • Guests
 

Posted 21 February 2006 - 08:29 AM

Well put Frosty-

what gets me is that lately they have been telling some vets who get a good IMO from a real doc that the real doc didn't examine the vet, therefore the opinion is not good -well that is crapola-

vets should not have to get an expensive IMO in the first place-but they often need one to succeed in their claim-
or the vet orgs should be picking up the tabs on IMOs-with all the money they save from not giving their SOs continuous viable training-

A vet in say NY might have to contact an expert from California to study their med recs and render an opinion-by mail.
It is ridiculous that the VA is starting to use this ploy to knock down IMOs when the VA doctor might give the vet-at best- a 15 minute C & P and never even look at their c file. And then the VA can somehow consider that as a more probative opinion than an IMO doctor who might not have the vet in their office,yet will take the time you have paid them for, to completely go over all the medical records.