Jump to content



Search



Shoutbox Open the Shoutbox in a popup
@  carlie : (30 August 2014 - 06:27 PM) Vet211060 - I Guess They're Not That Shameful After All : - ) Congrats On Some Positive Adjudication
@  vet201060 : (30 August 2014 - 04:24 PM) Dav Sent Letter Saying I Am 100% Effective Oct 2013
@  MarkInTexas : (30 August 2014 - 12:35 PM) Wish There Was A "like" Button For Some Of These Comments.......
@  MarkInTexas : (30 August 2014 - 12:26 PM) Amen To That!
@  vet201060 : (28 August 2014 - 09:55 PM) Va Is So Shameful!!
@  artlouis : (27 August 2014 - 11:36 AM) Code 7019
@  vet201060 : (26 August 2014 - 11:41 PM) Damn Post It Notes
@  vet201060 : (26 August 2014 - 11:41 PM) True That
@  Asiadaug : (26 August 2014 - 07:46 PM) I Have Yet To Deal With Any Piece Of Va That Isn't A Dysfunctional Mess...ebenefits, Claim Filing, Billing...and To Think Our Tax Dollars Are Used To Perpetuate That Calamity!
@  carlie : (26 August 2014 - 05:39 PM) notorious kelly - loved your shout ! ! !
@  GlassRose1500 : (26 August 2014 - 03:40 PM) Would Someone Add Smc Housbound Plus Smc A&a Regular And One Smc K For Me? I Can't Seem To Do That Math!
@  Notorious Kelly : (26 August 2014 - 03:12 PM) Ebenefits Is Not A Thermometer In The Rectum Of Your Claim; It Is A Post-It Note That May Or Not Be Updated Or Accurate. Try Not To Obsess ;)
@  mcassidy : (26 August 2014 - 01:25 PM) Osa
@  Jaluluah11B : (26 August 2014 - 10:05 AM) My Reconsideration Finally Showed Up On Ebenefits As A New Claim.  gathering Evidence.  [font=Arial][size=3]Automated 5103 Notice Response Needed. [/size][/font]
@  vet201060 : (26 August 2014 - 10:00 AM) Went From Pending Decision Approval To Review Of Evidence Today, I Need To Stop Looking At It. Drives You Crazy Waiting
@  GlassRose1500 : (25 August 2014 - 09:30 PM) @coriemboh I Get My Best Claim Advice Here, But My Dav Guy Gets The Best Intel Once The Claim Is Filed
@  coriemboh : (25 August 2014 - 08:57 PM) The Average Processing Time Is 9 Months More Or Less. Every Time I Call The 800#, I Get A Different Answer. Goe, Roe....make Up Your Mind!
@  coriemboh : (25 August 2014 - 08:56 PM) I Just Want To Know Ballpark Figure Of How Much Longer My Claim Will Take. The Bills Are Piling Up. Adds To My Anxiety And Depression. Sure Wish I Could Tell Bill Collectors The Same Things Va Tells Me!
@  coriemboh : (25 August 2014 - 08:54 PM) @glassrose1500-No, I Don't. I Put In For Representation A Few Days Ago, But I'm Sure That End Won't Pan Out Until The Claim Is Closed.
@  GlassRose1500 : (25 August 2014 - 12:11 PM) Would Appreciate Feedback On My Smc Draft - Posted In The Smc Section! Tkx!

Photo

I Need Help With M21- Interpretation


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

#1 mos1833

 
mos1833

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • First Class Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 187 posts
 

Posted 16 May 2011 - 12:51 PM

i was denied in 1985 , because of a defect in my back, ( congential transitional vertebra ) under 5299=5295 they called it an anomaly, is an anomaly the same as a deformity.








5. Until December 13, 2005, the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) Adjudication Procedures Manual M21-1, Part VI, 11.06f, stated:

If there is any limitation of motion together with deformity (compensable or noncompensable), add 10 percent under hyphenated diagnostic code 5285-5290 (limited motion of the cervical spine), 5285-5291 (limited motion dorsal spine), or 5285-5292 (limited motion lumbar spine). Whenever there is muscle spasm together with deformity and the requirements for a compensable evaluation under diagnostic code 5295 are met, add 10 percent to the assigned evaluation under diagnostic code 5285-5295.

This provision is consistent with the view that a maximum increase of 10 percent for vertebral deformity may be added to the rating assigned to a spinal segment based on limited motion or muscle spasm. Although the Manual M21-1 does not contain substantive rules subject to public notice and comment, it provides institutional guidance to VBA’s adjudicators as to the interpretation and application of VA’s regulations. Indeed, in the veteran’s case discussed in the opinion request, the regional office applied the 10-percent provision only once, consistent with the interpretation discussed above.

Advertise Here

 

#2 Berta

 
Berta

    HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • SVR
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28636 posts
 

Posted 17 May 2011 - 05:39 AM

There is a slight differences in these terms.

The problem,in your case, is the word 'congenital' and 'defect' if that is how the VA defined your disability..

“Congenital and developmental defects are not disabilities within
the meaning of applicable regulations providing for payment of VA
disability compensation benefits. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 4.9
(2009). Therefore, such disorders require more than an increase
in severity during service in order to warrant a grant of service
connection. The evidence must show that the congenital or
developmental defect was subject to a superimposed disease or
injury during military service that resulted in increased
disability. VAOPGCPREC 82- 90 (July 18, 1990), 55 Fed. Reg.
45711 [a reissue of General Counsel opinion 01-85 (March 5,
1985)].

The VA General Counsel explained there is a distinction under the
law between a congenital or developmental "disease" and a
congenital "defect" for service connection purposes in that
congenital diseases may be recognized as service connected if the
evidence as a whole shows aggravation in service within the
meaning of VA regulations. A congenital or developmental defect,
on the other hand, because of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303©, is not
service connectable in its own right, though service connection
may be granted for additional disability due to disease or injury
superimposed upon such defect during service. VAOPGCPREC 82-90.”

http://www.va.gov/ve...es4/1039099.txt


DO you have any medical opinion that would consider this as a disease that was aggravated by service?

#3 mos1833

 
mos1833

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • First Class Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 187 posts
 

Posted 17 May 2011 - 11:46 AM

There is a slight differences in these terms.

The problem,in your case, is the word 'congenital' and 'defect' if that is how the VA defined your disability..

“Congenital and developmental defects are not disabilities within
the meaning of applicable regulations providing for payment of VA
disability compensation benefits. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 4.9
(2009). Therefore, such disorders require more than an increase
in severity during service in order to warrant a grant of service
connection. The evidence must show that the congenital or
developmental defect was subject to a superimposed disease or
injury during military service that resulted in increased
disability. VAOPGCPREC 82- 90 (July 18, 1990), 55 Fed. Reg.
45711 [a reissue of General Counsel opinion 01-85 (March 5,
1985)].

The VA General Counsel explained there is a distinction under the
law between a congenital or developmental "disease" and a
congenital "defect" for service connection purposes in that
congenital diseases may be recognized as service connected if the
evidence as a whole shows aggravation in service within the
meaning of VA regulations. A congenital or developmental defect,
on the other hand, because of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303©, is not
service connectable in its own right, though service connection
may be granted for additional disability due to disease or injury
superimposed upon such defect during service. VAOPGCPREC 82-90.”

http://www.va.gov/ve...es4/1039099.txt


DO you have any medical opinion that would consider this as a disease that was aggravated by service?

thanks berta

but the best iml i can get is IT MAY BE related, and thats not good enough.




Advertise Here