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

Cue Agent Orange


This topic has been archived.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

#1 RDT

 
RDT

    E-3 Seaman

  • Third Class Petty Officers
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts
 

Posted 07 September 2011 - 05:50 PM

If you have an enjection fraction of 48% in the year 2002. Would not your rating be 60%.

The VA rated me 10% retro for 2002 based on a C&P in 2008 that guest MET at 10,C&P in 2009 that quest MET at 11 and last C&P in 2010 that show MET at 5 and injection fraction at 50%
I would think it would be 60% based on the injection fraction in the year 2002, not some C&P in 2008-2009 that I disputed.


Would a rating in 2000 that show 40% and a new award at 60% no bet = 78%

Thanks

RDT

#2 Interested

 
Interested

    E-4 Petty Officer 3rd Class

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 76 posts
 

Posted 08 September 2011 - 04:54 PM

Gee, the silence is deafening ...

First, is this a recent Rating Decision? What was the date on the notification letter? If the Decision is dated within the last year, a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) would likely be better - and perhaps quicker - than filing a Clear and Unmistakable Error (CUE). Unless of course, ya just gots ta' have a CUE to fulfill some inner need.

If everything actually is as you wrote, and all the alleged medical evidence is of record in your claims file, this is how the evaluation for coronary artery disease (I presume) should run:

2002-2008 : 60% because of EF between 30 and 50%.
2008-2009: Reduced to 10% because of METS greater than 7 but not less than 10.
2009: Reduction to 0% because of METS greater than 10.
2010: Increase to 60% because of METS greater than 3 but less than or (or, EF between 30 and 50%)

While I admit your medical findings are all over the chart, you'd need some other evidence to countervail or overcome the C&P examinations from 2008 and 2009 that you dispute. You might need your own Independent Medical Opinion (IMO), based on a review of all your treatment records, that those C&Ps were invalid.


As for Would a rating in 2000 that show 40% and a new award at 60% no bet = 78% , the actual number depends upon whether that 40% is a single 40%: several disabilities that combine to 40%; whether the bilateral factor comes into play, and so forth. However, almost any way you compute it, the number is 75% or greater, which rounds up to 80%.

If you have an enjection fraction of 48% in the year 2002. Would not your rating be 60%.

The VA rated me 10% retro for 2002 based on a C&P in 2008 that guest MET at 10,C&P in 2009 that quest MET at 11 and last C&P in 2010 that show MET at 5 and injection fraction at 50%
I would think it would be 60% based on the injection fraction in the year 2002, not some C&P in 2008-2009 that I disputed.


Would a rating in 2000 that show 40% and a new award at 60% no bet = 78%

Thanks

RDT



#3 RDT

 
RDT

    E-3 Seaman

  • Third Class Petty Officers
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts
 

Posted 08 September 2011 - 07:06 PM

Than You for the responds.
The 2 C&P were by nnew Nurse and lasted about 20 minutes. That is why I disputed them and when they scheduled the new C&P in Janurary 2011 it shower the correct LVL and METS, which matched in 2000. As you can see in the decision the VA stated the LVL was 48% in 2000.

I will file a NOD. I will keep searching here on the site to see if I can find how they apply medical evidents on a claim that is 11 years old.

Thanks for your advise and any other input would be great.


Ray

Gee, the silence is deafening ...

First, is this a recent Rating Decision? What was the date on the notification letter? If the Decision is dated within the last year, a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) would likely be better - and perhaps quicker - than filing a Clear and Unmistakable Error (CUE). Unless of course, ya just gots ta' have a CUE to fulfill some inner need.

If everything actually is as you wrote, and all the alleged medical evidence is of record in your claims file, this is how the evaluation for coronary artery disease (I presume) should run:

2002-2008 : 60% because of EF between 30 and 50%.
2008-2009: Reduced to 10% because of METS greater than 7 but not less than 10.
2009: Reduction to 0% because of METS greater than 10.
2010: Increase to 60% because of METS greater than 3 but less than or (or, EF between 30 and 50%)

While I admit your medical findings are all over the chart, you'd need some other evidence to countervail or overcome the C&P examinations from 2008 and 2009 that you dispute. You might need your own Independent Medical Opinion (IMO), based on a review of all your treatment records, that those C&Ps were invalid.


As for Would a rating in 2000 that show 40% and a new award at 60% no bet = 78% , the actual number depends upon whether that 40% is a single 40%: several disabilities that combine to 40%; whether the bilateral factor comes into play, and so forth. However, almost any way you compute it, the number is 75% or greater, which rounds up to 80%.




#4 RDT

 
RDT

    E-3 Seaman

  • Third Class Petty Officers
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts
 

Posted 08 September 2011 - 07:09 PM

My 40% in 2000 was for chronic low back syndrome. It was increased to 50% in 2003. Not sure how the bylateral factor work on this.



Thanks

Ray

#5 Interested

 
Interested

    E-4 Petty Officer 3rd Class

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 76 posts
 

Posted 09 September 2011 - 12:42 PM

Each bit of information makes this clearer ... almost like having full access to your claims file and being able to read it. In any event, based on what you've written, I presume you are a boots-on-the-ground Vietnam vet; you have been diagnosed with CAD/IHD; and, you initially filed a claim for service connection for CAD/IHD in 2002 (or have an implied claim from that date); your claim was resurrected (or transferred for processing under Nehmer); and, you are potentially eligible for retroactive disability compensation under Nehmer from sometime in 2002 .... am I correct, more or less?

Anyway, it is still not clear to me whether you have received a Rating Decision based on the disputed examinations/information from 2008 and 2009. Have you already received that Rating Decision? If so, a NOD is the way to go. If not, you have nothing to disagree with - yet.

However, your situation would not be a Clear and Unmistakable Error (CUE) because a CUE is a mis-application of the laws. From what you wrote, it appears to me that the laws, based on the evidence at hand, were applied properly. So, the NOD is the better way to go.

FYI, a C&PE is in most cases but a snapshot of a veteran's condition at that moment. Again in most cases, unless a Rating Veterans Service Representative (RVSR) has something else that states that those examinations were invalid, the RVSR still has to go with the examinations; otherwise, the RVSR would be supplying his/her own medical diagnosis. So, unless that C&PE from 2011 mentioned that those examinations were invalid, I'm afraid that the examinations likely will stand. With those erratic exams, an RVSR likely would: (a) have to rate the claim with the evidence at hand; or, (b) delay the claim even longer by sending the claims file back to the last examiner to state whether the previous two exams were valid/invalid; or, do some fancy footwork to state why the disputed exams were invalid; again, this verges on supplying a medical opinion.

FWIW, when a nurse practitioner (CNP) says something that is in the veteran's favor, that CNP is caring, compassionate, and really knowledgeable. If the CNP states something negative, or with which the veteran disagrees, the CNP is superficial and incompetent.

Than You for the responds.
The 2 C&P were by nnew Nurse and lasted about 20 minutes. That is why I disputed them and when they scheduled the new C&P in Janurary 2011 it shower the correct LVL and METS, which matched in 2000. As you can see in the decision the VA stated the LVL was 48% in 2000.

I will file a NOD. I will keep searching here on the site to see if I can find how they apply medical evidents on a claim that is 11 years old.

Thanks for your advise and any other input would be great.


Ray




#6 Interested

 
Interested

    E-4 Petty Officer 3rd Class

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 76 posts
 

Posted 09 September 2011 - 12:56 PM

Based on what you wrote in this and your earlier messages, and a little knowledge of the Rating Schedule, it's not likely that the bilateral factor has any bearing in this situation. Unless, of course, there's something else ....

My 40% in 2000 was for chronic low back syndrome. It was increased to 50% in 2003. Not sure how the bylateral factor work on this.



Thanks

Ray



#7 Berta

 
Berta

    HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • SVR
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28996 posts
 

Posted 09 September 2011 - 01:06 PM

I responded to your other post RDT with this:

"RDT-did you contact NVLSP when you filed this claim as suggested in our AO forum?

The decision might be correct but I suggest whether you had contact with them yet or not- contact NVLSP at their AO addy and ask them if they would review the decision.

agentorange@nvlsp.org

Yes-these are pro bono lawyers and they won the Beverly Nehmer AO court case."