Jump to content



Search



Toggle shoutbox Shoutbox Open the Shoutbox in a popup

@  arng11 : (26 November 2014 - 11:30 AM) Everyone Enjoy The Holidays And Be Safe.
@  eagle1012004 : (26 November 2014 - 10:10 AM) Have A Happy Thanksgiving All!!!
@  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.

Photo

Need Advice On Chloracne Claim For Vietnam Veteran


This topic has been archived.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

#1 Troy Spurlock

 
Troy Spurlock

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • First Class Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 119 posts
 

Posted 20 February 2010 - 09:52 PM

Since 2008 I have been working with due diligence to assist a Vietnam veteran in his claim for service connection for chloracne.

As with any typical Vietnam veteran, many blew off the VA system because of the way they were treated by Americans upon their return; not to mention the fact that the VA outrightly denied their claims regardless of their service.

Anyhow, long story short, we have lay and expert evidence - even a VA C&P examiner giving a 'probable' diagnosis of chloracne (which the CFRs and BVA substantiate is all that is needed from a physician to substantiated a service connected claim) - but the VA we're dealing with is arbitrarily dismissing it with contradictory statements. Stating they cannot ignore a medical opinion but they can disregard it all the same.

I would certainly appreciate any input from any Vietnam veteran who has successfully achieved a service-connected disability rating with family, friends, and VA C&P examiner information substantiating the veteran's claim for such.

Thanks!

Troy Spurlock
Former US Army Veteran
Military Police Investigator
Airborne

#2 jbasser

 
jbasser

    Moderator/HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6283 posts
 

Posted 20 February 2010 - 10:01 PM

Do they have any negative evidence on this issue?
If not then you are going to have to get this issue out of the RO and to the BVA or higher. Also ask the RO where they went to medical school?

James Cripps has been thriugh this one and Maybe he can add some input.

J

#3 Troy Spurlock

 
Troy Spurlock

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • First Class Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 119 posts
 

Posted 20 February 2010 - 10:15 PM

Do they have any negative evidence on this issue?
If not then you are going to have to get this issue out of the RO and to the BVA or higher. Also ask the RO where they went to medical school?

James Cripps has been thriugh this one and Maybe he can add some input.

J


Question 1: Do they have any negative evidence on this issue?

That is a definite NO! The VA is making allegations they cannot and have not proven (i.e. they continuously fail to meet their burden of proof to the contrary).

Second point, we are taking it out of the RO and to the BVA directly. I am currently working on dissecting the VARO's ignorant response right now; and we will be appealing the the BVA (2009 decisions searched thus far are similar to this case and I believe the BVA will rule in our favor).

The RO actually stated in this denial that the RO, though it cannot deny a C&P examiners opinion, can still deny that opinion and likewise deny the veteran's claim. How's that for an implicit contradiction!?!

T.S.

#4 Pete53

 
Pete53

    Moderator/HadIt.com Elder

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21895 posts
 

Posted 21 February 2010 - 12:40 AM

It won't be the first time it has happened. Just keep after them and hopefully the Veteran will get their hard earned benefits.

#5 jbasser

 
jbasser

    Moderator/HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6283 posts
 

Posted 21 February 2010 - 10:42 AM

Question 1: Do they have any negative evidence on this issue?

That is a definite NO! The VA is making allegations they cannot and have not proven (i.e. they continuously fail to meet their burden of proof to the contrary).

Second point, we are taking it out of the RO and to the BVA directly. I am currently working on dissecting the VARO's ignorant response right now; and we will be appealing the the BVA (2009 decisions searched thus far are similar to this case and I believe the BVA will rule in our favor).

The RO actually stated in this denial that the RO, though it cannot deny a C&P examiners opinion, can still deny that opinion and likewise deny the veteran's claim. How's that for an implicit contradiction!?!

T.S.


Troy, Pete is right. You need to keep your focus and your resolve to get this done. Do you have an attorney? I may consider getting one because there are points of lelgal expertise the attorneys can relate to on your claim.

J

#6 Philip Rogers

 
Philip Rogers

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3977 posts
 

Posted 21 February 2010 - 11:24 AM

The main problem I see is that VA requires that the chloracne be 10% disabling within one year of exposure to AO and it's now some 40yrs later.

pr

#7 evandc

 
evandc

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 434 posts
 

Posted 21 February 2010 - 04:32 PM

PR

Thanks for your comment..I was going to post that it was long, long, tough battle to win for 10%.
I'm so good at pissing people off I didn't want to upset everyone. Also, I look at the "Big Picture"-most vets in my group have PTSD, Cancer, Heart Problems, Diabetes ll, Kidney Problems, PN & on & on. Many of them have several of these problems. Could just be my hard head, but I'm for going for the big numbers. This 10%,10% Chinese Math drives me crazy. Give me 100% plus some SMC Award any day. Yes, I know not everyone has the 100% conditions, but guess it's just me.

Thanks,

Don

#8 jbasser

 
jbasser

    Moderator/HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6283 posts
 

Posted 21 February 2010 - 06:43 PM

I Didnt see the 1 year denial on James Cripps VA decision.

http://www4.va.gov/v...es5/0941553.txt

I think with the medical evidence and a good Medical Nexus then you should be service connected.

J

#9 Troy Spurlock

 
Troy Spurlock

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • First Class Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 119 posts
 

Posted 21 February 2010 - 08:11 PM

The main problem I see is that VA requires that the chloracne be 10% disabling within one year of exposure to AO and it's now some 40yrs later.

pr


I've reviewed a lot of BVA rulings granting chloracne from the date this veteran I'm helping originally filed to 2009; and in all they accepted lay evidence (veteran's own statements and/or family and friends statements) establishing that the chloracne was there and within one year of separation.

The VA has already admitted, repeatedly, that this veteran served in Vietnam and is presumed to have been exposed to AO. However, they simply refuse to accept lay evidence or their own C&P examiner's "probable" diagnosis of chloracne (which some BVA decisions I've read granting chloracne claims did so on such probable diagnoses, and even less evidence than what we've submitted).

Any new and material evidence we send, they say it is not new and material meerly because it echos previously submitted evidence. In short the VA is saying there is no evidence we can submit to change their mind, even if it comes from different people not already on record attesting to the veterans chloracne.

The VA here is simply refusing to admit they are wrong despite the evidence proving the contrary.

#10 jamescripps2

 
jamescripps2

    E-4 Petty Officer 3rd Class

  • Second Class Petty Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 79 posts
 

Posted 05 June 2012 - 12:48 AM

I probably did not see or respond to this post in time to do you any good but here it is. In order to win a claim for chloracne, the claim must be submitted for direct exposure. 38 CFR 3.303 D allows that any disease may be claimed at anytime post discharge.

If you choose to file under the presumptive of exposure, then you have to contend with the cloracne one year rule as laid out for you at
38 CFR 3.307 and 3.309.

My advice would be to change the claim from presumptive exposure to direct exposure. You will then need to show where in Vietnam your veteran was and do your DD as to where exactly AO was used and how he was exposed. Just use the spray maps from the websites and VA,s own site.

If you elect to do this, just write out your intentions on a VA form 21-4138 and submit it. Clearly make it known that you are changing from presumptive exposure to direct exposure and send along with the 4138 a copy of the exposure evidence. do not spare highliting in yellow your intention. You do not have to refile and the change should not slow the claim.

James Cripps

#11 RonP

 
RonP

    E-4 Petty Officer 3rd Class

  • Second Class Petty Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 89 posts
 

Posted 05 June 2012 - 11:33 PM

I went through the process, filed the claim, was denied, and appealed....My legal adviser presented evince of skin cancer related to chloracne.
This was a 5 year fight...
To no avail.
I forked out 10,000 in cancer treatments....bottom line they will always return to. You have to file the claim 365 day within discharge date...if you did not, you will not win.
My experience
RP

#12 Troy Spurlock

 
Troy Spurlock

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • First Class Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 119 posts
 

Posted 24 June 2012 - 01:51 PM

James and Ron,

I actually won this claim for the Vietnam veteran I was helping.

It was won not for chloracne, but acne vulgaris (merely because it was noted on the entrance exam and the RO kept denying because of this) aggravated by AO (in srevice) exposure. Either way, I count it as a win for this veteran who has fought the VA since 1974 on this when he got out and was all but done with the VA until we met.

I also got his PTSD increased fro 10 to 50% as well...

THanks for the feedback nonetheless, as it will help for future help that I may provide others.

#13 RonP

 
RonP

    E-4 Petty Officer 3rd Class

  • Second Class Petty Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 89 posts
 

Posted 28 June 2012 - 08:53 AM

James and Ron,

I actually won this claim for the Vietnam veteran I was helping.

It was won not for chloracne, but acne vulgaris (merely because it was noted on the entrance exam and the RO kept denying because of this) aggravated by AO (in srevice) exposure. Either way, I count it as a win for this veteran who has fought the VA since 1974 on this when he got out and was all but done with the VA until we met.

I also got his PTSD increased fro 10 to 50% as well...

THanks for the feedback nonetheless, as it will help for future help that I may provide others.

You definitely need an AT A BOY for that .....oooo....Rahhhh

#14 Berta

 
Berta

    HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • SVR
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29048 posts
 

Posted 02 July 2012 - 09:10 AM

“I went through the process, filed the claim, was denied, and appealed....My legal adviser presented evince of skin cancer related to chloracne. “

That is like comparing an apple to a pear. Possible but these are two different diagnosis.

I interviewed James Scripps at our SVR shows here I think o maybe another radio show ? and I believe his full BVA decision is here too. His opinions are solid.

James ,like Kurt Priessman , the firstThailand AO veteran, did an overwhelming amount of work on his claim and even went to his prior Duty station to continue that research to become the First CONUS AO veteran.

Maybe this BVA decision will help you understand the evidence VA needs or this type of claim.




“At a February 2008 RO hearing, the Veteran testified that felt
that his exposure to Agent Orange and sunlight in Vietnam caused
his skin cancers. He stated that while he was never issued any
skin protection while he was in Vietnam. He recalled having a
very bad sunburn in 1967 in which the skin came off his face. “

and
“In a letter dated in February 2009, the Veteran's private
physician (L.C.K., M.D.) stated that the Veteran has been a
patient in her dermatology practice since 2003 and that he has a
history of numerous basal cell carcinoma and atypical nevi. She
noted that his examination revealed fairly severe generalized sun
damage. She also noted that the Veteran had served in Vietnam
for a year. She opined that it more likely than not that the sun
exposure that the Veteran received in Vietnam was a contributing
factor to the problems that he was currently having. She
indicated that the Veteran had shown photos of himself both prior
to and during his service in Vietnam. “

ORDER (in Part)

Service connection for skin cancer is granted.

Also we had a navy vet's claim here that his daughter worked on with help from hadit many years ago.

VA service connected all of his disabilities to include skin cancer as a result of his many ship board duties, forcing him to receive direct sunlight almost daily for hours while on duty with no sun screen protection.

These claims need a strong independent medical opinion to succeed.

They also need to be claimed by raising any potential theory of entitlement.

Edited by Berta, 02 July 2012 - 09:12 AM.


#15 Berta

 
Berta

    HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • SVR
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29048 posts
 

Posted 02 July 2012 - 09:20 AM

Sorry-I forgot the link to that BVA decision:

http://www.va.gov/ve...es1/1106553.txt

And here is another SC award for sunlight causing skin cancer:

http://www.va.gov/ve...es3/0822914.txt