Jump to content



Search



Toggle shoutbox Shoutbox Open the Shoutbox in a popup

@  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
@  USMC_HVEQ : (10 November 2014 - 01:11 AM) Happy Birthday Marines!
@  Tbird : (09 November 2014 - 05:41 PM) Veterans Affairs Secretary Interview On 60 Minutes Sunday, Nov. 9 At 7 P.m. Et - Cbs.com
@  Burt : (09 November 2014 - 01:33 PM) Http://www.hadit.com/forums/topic/59165-C-P-Results-Knee-Back-Hip-Hearing-And-Tinitus-Any-Thoughts/
@  Tbird : (08 November 2014 - 03:06 AM) Thank You Judith W. For Your Contribution To Our Funding Campaign.
@  cruiser07 : (07 November 2014 - 10:00 PM) Champva
@  Notorious Kelly : (07 November 2014 - 02:20 PM) Deals

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

  • Chief Petty Officers
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 207 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.

#2 Berta

 
Berta

    HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • SVR
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28996 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

  • Chief Petty Officers
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 207 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.