• Announcements

    • How to get your questions answered.

      How to get your questions answered. A few observations, and requests of all members. All folks who come here are volunteers who do this on their own time and their own dime.To avoid burning out our best contributors please follow these guidelinesf you are reading a post and it reminds you of a question you want to ask, start a new topic, if you place your question in someone thread it will be difficult to distinguish your question from the original poster, you will get better results posting a new topic with your question. 1. Before Posting please do a search and see if your question has already been answered. If you find the answer print it out and put it in a file to use as a reference file, I find this helpful myself. 2. If you can not find the answer and you do post a question, please print out those answers and refer to them to avoid duplicate questions. 3. Refer to the Frequently Asked Questions4. Duplicate questions will come up from time to time but the keeping them to the minimum will lighten the load on the regular volunteers.5. Respect folks privacy do not request their personal phone numbers for claims help, it is inappropriate and not why they are here.6. Keep the topics focused on veterans issues, in closing Search first Search ... Ask second.it may save a lot of time or at the very least enlighten you.
    • Listen Live Every Wed 5:30 PM CST to SVR Radio, Veterans Issues are discussed with various guests.

      Listen Live Every Wed 5:30 PM CST to SVR Radio, Veterans Issues are discussed with various guests. Please check the little home I am carving out for our SVR partners. http://www.hadit.com/svr.html
    • A bit about Tbird and HadIt.com for those who've asked...

      The following is on my About page, but some have been asking how this all happened. So here is my little story. Tbird US Navy 1983 – 1990 E-6 HadIt.com the website domain registered Jan 20, 1997 the domain is registered and paid for through Jan 21, 2023 at which time I plan to register it for another 15 years Lord willing and the creek don't rise. I guess the best place to start is Jan 1991; I had gotten out of the navy Dec 1990. At my separation seminar, there was a DAV rep Jim Milton he told us to bring our medical records in and he would look through them for us and let us know if we should file a claim with the VA. Well, bless his heart, he opened my medical file, reads the first insert, looks me straight in the eye, and says you will be 50% for the rest of your life and he would file the claim for me. 50% was for surgery I had in the service. True to his word he met with me and talked with me for a long time filled out my paper work and urged me to file for PTSD. I would not file the PTSD claim, nor even discuss it. By Feb 1991 I had moved to the San Francisco bay area and was staying at a friends apartment and pretty much I was just a puddle. In desperation one night I called suicide hot line, I had no job, no idea about going to the VA. They talked with me for a long time and explained to me that I could go to the local VA hospital even if I did not have insurance. Now, I know what you are thinking if I was 50% why didn't I just go to the VA in the first place, two reasons 1, this was Feb 1991 and the 50% didn't come till May and 2, even if it had come through it is unlikely that I would have had the mental acuity at the time to put the two together. I relate this here because it is where so many of our brothers and sisters are coming from, perhaps where you started. Fuzzy and unsure, in pain and sometimes homeless they come to the VA hospital for help. And that is where I ended up. Up to the pysch ward I went, blah, blah, blah, a few days later I was released with a promise of a call from the out patient program, which I would soon be entering. Blah, blah, blah, after many missed communications, and no call backs I was at the Day Hospital everyday M-F. And this brothers and sisters is where I began to learn and formulate my plan for HadIt.com. Veterans, veterans everywhere…I spent a year in the day hospital and about another year at a sheltered workshop before I got back on my feet. So I just talked to veterans everyday waiting for appointments, waiting for prescriptions, waiting for a vet rep and I started to learn the system. While in the navy I was data analyst and had to learn a 5 volume manual and just about anything you were suppose to do was in that manual. So I figured there must be a manual on how to do a VA claim or at the very least regulations. So I found out about the Code of Federal Regulations, United States Code, Veterans Affairs Manuals and so on and so forth. Of course this was 1991/1992 I was living in a tiny studio apartment in a particularly bad neighborhood, working in a sheltered workshop making a nickel per envelope I stuffed throw in PTSD and you will see that it was a difficult task for me to get somewhere where they had copies of these, let alone that they would let me look at. And there was so much knowledge around me, it was like the gold rush in those days, I could just sit on a bench a veteran would sit down next to me a little conversation later I had another nugget, I made copious notes. Phone numbers to call, ask for this guy or that guy he'll give you the straight scoop and they'd slip me a piece of paper with a number on it. You want to read this regulation or that one and another slip of paper into my hand. I spent a lot of time on those benches watching the squirrels they gathered their nuts and I gathered mine :) So I'm thinking I could put a little handbook together print it out and hand it out at the VA. Or perhaps fliers. Still formulating, time goes by, 1994/1995 I am being treated for PTSD regularly and doing and feeling much better and I go to work for a company as a marketing systems analyst and I discover the internet. Well let me tell you that was perhaps one of the most significant life changing events I have ever experienced. And I might add finally a positive one :) It seemed only natural to me that surely there must be a website that contained all the knowledge I wanted, well as it turned out not so much, lots of stuff but I wanted to get straight to the claims information and there was a lot of stuff to wade through to get to it. So taking my lesson from the squirrels earlier I started to gather, gather, gather…and learn HTML and work as a marketing systems analyst and work my claim. 1996/1997 major PTSD cork blows and unemployed. Working my claim, working the website. 20 Jan 1997 register HadIt.com domain name right after getting off the phone with the VA and saying I've had it with this. As fate would have it the old DAV board goes down just as mine opens up and folks start to wander in. So HadIt.com has two main components the website which supports the discussion board with links, articles, research resources etc. The website starts to grow, I can't tell you how many times I had to switch servers for space and features. I continue on a downward trend and in 1998 ended up back home in St Louis living in my sisters basement in therapy and working it, I swear I would have swung a dead chicken around my head at midnight naked if I thought it would have helped. The website continued to do great during this time, I just stayed in the basement bought new software, new books, and learned how to make things work and I continued to use this knowledge to make HadIt.com better. My 100% finally came through from the VA and I had a friend who is an advocate who helped me thru my SSDI claim, he was literally at my side thru the entire process and that came through for me. My therapist and sister continued to try and get me to leave the basement, but to no avail. At some point in 1998 or 1999 I put a counter on the website and was shocked to discover how many visitors we were getting. Time goes by my sister gets married and I move from the basement to the upstairs, there is much celebration that Aunt T is living in the light again. More time goes by and I settle into my life in St Louis and spend more time on the site trying new things, finding more information. 2003 I buy my own home VA loan. For years now I have just considered HadIt.com my job and I get up every morning go to the office and work for several hours, take an afternoon break and see where the rest of day takes me. I have a place in the office to use the computer and a comfortable to place to read journals and articles and take notes. Blah, blah, blah so that is my story and HadIt.com's intertwined.
    • HadIt.com Pass It On Cards

      Hi I've updated our HadIt.com Pass It On Cards. They are in a PDF format you can print them out cut them there are 12 to a page. If you have found HadIt.com helpful and would like to pass it on to other veterans this is an easy way to do it.I hope you find them helpful, feel free to leave a few anywhere veterans gather, veterans centers, veterans hospitals, public libraries, be creative. Please make sure though, that if you want to leave some at any business you ask permission first.Here you go http://www.hadit.com...it_on_cards.pdf
    • VA Training and Fast Letter Forum Index

      VA Training and Fast Letter Forum Index The following is the index with links to the various Training and Fast Letters plus a few miscellaneous. These letters are not necessarily in the original formatting. I have tried to present them in an easy-to-read form instead of some forms as originally presented. Some of the paragraphs were WAAAAYYY too long. lol - HadIt.com Member fanaticbooks Something to be aware.... Some of these letters may be rescinded, outdated, or otherwise no longer viable. I have still included them because sometimes they provide additional insight or just plain more information than the newest version. Use them wisely. The oldest letters will display at the bottom with the latest letters displayed at the top, all in sequential numbers. Coding of the letters... FL = Fast Letter TL = Training Letter First two numbers = last two digits of year of origin Training Letter http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40694-va-tl-00-07/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40693-va-tl-00-06/ Fast Letter Number Title http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/44262-va-fl-11-15/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/44260-va-fl-11-13/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/44261-va-fl-11-11/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/44310-va-fl-11-09/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/42151-va-fl-11-03/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40957-va-fl-10-49/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40958-va-fl-10-46/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40959-va-fl-10-45/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40960-va-fl-10-42/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40961-va-fl-10-39/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40962-va-fl-10-35/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40963-va-fl-10-34/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40964-va-fl-10-32/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40966-va-fl-10-30/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40967-va-fl-10-26/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40968-va-fl-10-25/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40819-va-fl-10-24e1/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40818-va-fl-10-24/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40817-va-fl-10-22/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40814-va-fl-10-04/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40969-va-fl-10-03/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40812-va-fl-10-02/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40808-va-fl-09-52/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40806-va-fl-09-50/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40970-va-fl-09-41/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40971-va-fl-09-38/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40804-va-fl-09-33/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40972-va-fl-09-28/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40671-va-fl-09-27/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40973-va-fl-09-26/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40803-va-fl-09-25/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40802-va-fl-09-21e2/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40801-va-fl-09-21/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40799-va-fl-09-20/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40798-va-fl-09-17/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40974-va-fl-09-15/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40975-va-fl-09-13/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40797-va-fl-09-10e1/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40796-va-fl-09-10/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40795-va-fl-09-09/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40976-va-fl-09-08/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40794-va-fl-09-07/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40793-va-fl-09-06/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40977-va-fl-09-05/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40731-va-fl-08-41/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40730-va-fl-08-38/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40729-va-fl-08-36/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40728-va-fl-08-34/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40726-va-fl-08-33/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40725-va-fl-08-31/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40978-va-fl-08-29/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40724-va-fl-08-26/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40723-va-fl-08-23/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40722-va-fl-08-20/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40979-va-fl-08-15/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40721-va-fl-08-12/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40720-va-fl-08-10/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40719-va-fl-08-08/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/41580-va-fl-08-02/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40717-va-fl-07-27/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40980-va-fl-07-19/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40981-va-fl-07-15/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40718-va-fl-07-10/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40716-va-fl-07-07/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40715-va-fl-07-06/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40701-va-fl-07-01/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40983-va-fl-06-29/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40699-va-fl-06-28/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40984-va-fl-06-27/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/41579-va-fl-06-26/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40698-va-fl-06-25/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40986-va-fl-06-24/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40987-va-fl-06-21/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40988-va-fl-06-19/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40696-va-fl-05-08/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40697-va-fl-04-13/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40989-va-fl-04-06/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/42415-va-fl-02-24/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/41582-va-fl-01-94/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40990-va-fl-00-44/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/41581-va-fl-00-33/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40991-va-fl-99-124/ Miscellaneous http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40993-best-practice-manual-for-posttraumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/44264-auditory-noise-fsh-regulation-no-40-7-appendix-b/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/44266-auditory-noise-duty-mosjob-title/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/44265-auditory-noise-cam-regulation-40-5/ VHA Directives Number Title http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/41073-va-vha-directive-2010-045/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/42174-vha-directive-2010-033/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/42175-vha-directive-2010-029/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/42176-vha-directive-2010-014/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/42177-vha-directive-2010-012/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/42178-vha-directive-2010-009/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/42179-vha-directive-2009-048/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/42180-vha-directive-2009-047/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/42150-vha-directive-2008-071/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/42181-vha-directive-2008-070/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/44263-vha-directive-2008-005/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/42182-vha-directive-2007-039/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/42183-vha-directive-2007-024/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/42184-vha-directive-2007-016/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/42185-vha-directive-2007-013/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/42186-vha-directive-2006-057/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/40994-va-vha-directive-2006-013/ http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?/topic/42187-vha-directive-2000-029/

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • 0

Thoughts On "new And Material Evidence" Standards.

Question

Posted · Report post

Mods, feel free to move this topic to the appropriate forum if I have posted it within the wrong one.

I am getting ready to go head to head with the VA helping another Vietnam veteran reopen a claim vs. filing it as a new one because the original claim was not only incorrectly filed by the county VSO (that I hope to replace soon, interview is tomorrow for the job), but the VA RO in its denial really didn't address any evidence for or against the claim and was rather vague about it.

I made a great investment buying two books from Lexis Nexis that focuses on case law, etc. and the CFR/USCS on veterans benefits, and in reading it I cannot help but question something. Here is what I gleaned from the text:

"The new definition of "new and material evidence" has changed and is applicable to any claim finally denied received on or after August 29, 2001.

New evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decision makers."

>Okay...so what if a veteran, by whatever means, submitted "evidence" to the RO [bUT] the RO 'never' really considered it and/or cited it in their decision of denial?

Just because "evidence" is submitted to agency decision makers does NOT necessarily mean that that evidence was actually reviewed much less considered by the [decision makers].

Thoughts?

"Material evidence means existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim."

>What if all the evidence on file is generated by the VA Medical Center, and as we are all human, to be human is to er. That being said, the rectal cancer that this veteran was diagnosed with was given a particular name, which could qualify as a 'soft tissue sarcoma,' a presumtive condition of AO exposure.

Then again, it could have been misdiagnosed altogether yet operated on just the same (and incorrectly with three follow-up corrective surgeries that included a stint in the bladder sphincter muscle - which in and of itself is another claim, either tort (malpractice) or subject to disability compensation according to some citations I read in the Lexis Nexis books).

"New and material evidence can neither be cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened, and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim."

>Again this begs the questions, what if the decision makers NEVER considered it?

The advocacy tip in these books state that an advocate needs to focus on the reason(s) for the denial in asking to reopen a claim.

Given the decision of denial on this veteran, which is vague and makes NO reference to any diagnosis or specific evidence; I feel that reopening it won't be that difficult, it's their anticipated denial based on "new and material evidence" I want to nip in the butt before they can give it.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

60 answers to this question

Posted · Report post

You have not provided enough specific details for me to offer an opinion. It would be nice to know exactly what the denial said.

They are not required to discuss every piece of evidence in the file. If they failed to list the evidence, that is another story. However, if the veteran was treated in a VA hospital they usually show the dates of the records they obtained from the VAMC without listing each specific report given to them by the hospital.

Additionally, it sounds like you are claiming there was a misdiagnosis issue. If you were to get a medical opinion with a change of diagnosis, this easily could be new and material evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Posted · Report post

If there is a medical report offered as evidence and the VA neither considers it or lists it that makes two prongs of the three steps for a CUE. The third step depends on if the excluded evidence would have changed the outcome of the rating decision. Then that gets into other areas of "reasonable minds" and "undebatable certainty" which are really the judgement of the VA. That is when you need a lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The denial said nothing about the condition claimed other than it was denied, and that's my point in maneuvering to reopen the claim.

And while the VA doesn't have to discuss every piece of evidence, it does have to cite the evidence considered in order to justify the denial.

Does it not stand to reason (then again we are talking about the VA)...that evidence not considered is tantamount to evidence not received?

If the VA has given no specific reason for the denial - xyz report of Dr Who said this and that - or some case/statute - then it pretty leaves it open for a request to reopen the claim.

One can certainly argue a misdiagnosis and claim a different one with the proper medical literature and case citations, along with other argued points just enough to get the VA to grant the reopening of the claim; and once they do they are obligated under VCAA to provide a proper exam and assist in acquiring the "material evidence" necessary from the VA medical center (the only place this vet has been treated for this cancer as he has been unemployed ever since and has no other insurance).

Thanks for the replies gentlemen. I will also double check the CUE prongs, but a reopened claim is easier than CUE to argue and get approved in the short/long run...no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'd be curious to know how you became 100% SC for Angioedema... (according to your signature line).

Exactly how was it service connected?

Did a quick Google [medical] search for it then Control F for "military" "agent" "orange" and other relevant key words...no matches.

?

Must have been a pre-existing condition classified as "aggravated by in service," no?

Just trying to learn what I can...and that condition is well, unique...to say, from what I read, that is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If there is a medical report offered as evidence and the VA neither considers it or lists it that makes two prongs of the three steps for a CUE. The third step depends on if the excluded evidence would have changed the outcome of the rating decision. Then that gets into other areas of "reasonable minds" and "undebatable certainty" which are really the judgement of the VA. That is when you need a lawyer.

So far in 15 years I've never needed a "lawyer" to win a case with the VA, either for myself or another veteran.

Being a lawyer doesn't make or break a VA case, because even lawyers have to be "accredited" via the DVA (which is meaningless IMO) in order to effectively represent someone on more than one claim (and that is the ONLY thing being accredited does for you, it allows you to represent a veteran on more than one claim on a one time basis).

Otherwise, ANYONE can represent a veteran on one claim on a one time basis via VA FORM 21-22a (http://www.vba.va.go...-21-22A-ARE.pdf). The REAL question is...does the individual REALLY know and UNDERSTAND the process to be an EFFECTIVE ADVOCATE!?!

I do...most lawyers don't.

County counsel referred me to a friend of his, a Lt. Colonel in the MC who is retiring and a former DA and DOJ lawyer going into private practice who needs guidance in filing claims with the VA. We met, he liked what I had to say, presented myself, and asked that we counsel one another on helping veterans. Suffice to say I was honored, but it also proves...a veteran doesn't always need a lawyer, just someone who understands how the VA claims system works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Sometimes evidence doesn't make it into the VARO in time for a decision. Once I call my DAV rep. and asked him why a piece of my evidence was not considered in my claim. He told me that it was sitting right there on his desk. It was from that point on that I decided to send evidence myself with a certified mail. When it comes to court, then you will have the receipt.

This cross over of evidence sometimes is the reason that evidence is not considered. It is also the reason that I decided not to go with VSO's.

If the court does not have the evidence it can not consider it.

______________________________________________

Most of us here have won our own claims, basically. We have become pro-active, dug down, and learned the process. We have learned much more than that. We have learned the bottle necks that aren't included in the system.

Many Vets are over whelmed with the system for one reason or another, and just give up. These Vets need to go to a lawyer. There are just to many for one person to handle alone. Go to any VSO office and look at the claims piled up to the roof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

“Does it not stand to reason (then again we are talking about the VA)...that evidence not considered is tantamount to evidence not received?”

Although the Board has an obligation to

provide reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no

need to discuss, in detail, the evidence submitted by the

appellant or on his behalf. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378,

1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the Board must review the entire

record, but does not have to discuss each piece of evidence).

The analysis below focuses on the most salient and relevant

evidence and on what this evidence shows, or fails to show, on

the claim. The appellant must not assume that the Board has

overlooked pieces of evidence that are not explicitly discussed

herein. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000) (the

law requires only that the Board address its reasons for

rejecting evidence favorable to the claimant).

For reasons stated below if the diagnosis noted in the VAMC reports was not sufficiently clear to identify a specific diagnosis of a presumptive AO cancer then there was no evidence facially and materially favorable to the veterans claim. Furthermore, they had no obligation to develop the claim based on a vague association in the VAMC reports of the cancer to a presumptive AO condition. I have seen no new laws over writing Goober v. Derwinski

Gobber v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 470, 472 (1992) (the "'duty

to assist' is not a license for a 'fishing expedition' to

determine if there might be some unspecified information which

could possibly support a claim . . . [and] this duty is limited

to specifically identified documents that by their description

would be facially relevant and material to the claim").

“If the VA have no specific reason for the denial - xyz report of Dr Whi said this and that - or some case/statute - then it pretty leaves it open for a request to reopen the claim.”

Nothing is open to request the VA to re-open a claim. You must show that they failed to consider identified documents that by their description were facially relevant and material to the claim. So far all you have stated is that the veteran “could” have had a presumptive cancer, without specifically identifying the exact diagnosis provided by the VAMC and how it matches up to the AO laws.

As a general rule, "when a claim is disallowed by the Board, the claim may not thereafter be reopened and allowed and a claim based upon the same factual basis may not be considered." 38 U.S.C. § 7104(b) (emphasis added). The purpose of § 7104(b) is "to preserve the finality of Board decisions." Dittrich v. West, 163 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1998). There are only two statutorily created exceptions to the rule of finality for veterans claims in § 7104(b). Cook v. Principi, 318 F.3d 1334, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc). First, under 38 U.S.C. § 5108, "f new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim which has been disallowed, the Secretary shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of the claim." See also 38 C.F.R. § 3.156; Barnett v. Brown, 83 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ("[T]he Board does not have jurisdiction to consider a claim which it previously adjudicated unless new and material evidence is presented, and before the Board may reopen such a claim, it must so find."). Second, a final decision "is subject to revision on the grounds of clear and unmistakable error." Cook

“The denial said nothing about the condition claimed other than it was denied, and that's my point in maneuvering to reopen the claim.…..And while the VA doesn't have to discuss every piece of evidence, it does have to cite the evidence considered in order to justify the denial.”

If the evidence was included in the VAMC reports showing the diagnosis for the claimed condition and the VA included the VAMC records on the evidence list then the evidence was cited. The question is whether or not they need to give rational. It appears you are claiming there was insufficient rational to show that the medical evidence was considered. There are many types of claims in which the VA would not be required to discuss the medical evidence for the purpose of denying a claim. What if the claim was denied because the veteran did not establish AO exposure? Sometimes they do not take the time to write a denial that is coherent. Arguing that there was a poorly written denial does not equate to the type of argument that you can count on to win a claim. It sounds like the claim was denied without a C&P exam. I have seen this happen in many claims in which the claimed condition and the diagnosed condition (upon which a rating would be established) used different diagnostic terms.

The veteran’s option was to file a notice of disagreement and get an SOC. The SOC’s should be better developed than the denial. The VA considers this a process of perfecting a claim. By arguing that the denial was poorly written might cause them to write the actual reason the claim was denied. This would put you right back in a position where new and material evidence will be required. You have not provided enough information regarding the diagnoses and applicable laws to even guess that there is a valid claim. It appears you are considering the veteran was exposed to AO. Thus, you address the issue of medical evidence.

“What if all the evidence on file is generated by the VA Medical Center, and as we are all human, to be human is to er. That being said, the rectal cancer that this veteran was diagnosed with was given a particular name, which could qualify as a 'soft tissue sarcoma,' a presumtive condition of AO exposure.”

You have made vague references to cancer that may have been misdiagnosed or not properly identified by the VA clinicians as a presumptive AO condition. It appears that you will be arguing that the medical evidence not discussed would show that the veteran has a condition that “could” have qualified as a presumptive condition. Can you cite the specific diagnosis that was made and recorded by the VAMC and the presumptive laws that apply to that specific diagnosis?

If there was any question as to the diagnosis being the exact diagnosis cited as a presumptive AO condition this could result in a denial that did not specifically address the medical evidence. The fact that they did not take the time to write an additional sentence in the denial saying that the veteran was not diagnosed with a presumptive condition does not result in the VA reopening the claim. “could qualify” needs to be identified as “does qualify” when trying to re-open a claim. “to be human is to er” The raters are not required to read into medical evidence for the purpose of finding other applicable diagnoses (fishing). Claims are identified by diagnosis or symptoms. In a cancer claim the specific diagnosis made by the clinicians would need to be very accurate. If the VAMC diagnosis was vague arguing this point without new medical evidence showing the correct diagnosis is not a reliable argument. Without new medical evidence you’re your argument is that the rater failed to fish for the proper diagnosis prior to the denial. If the diagnosis made by the VAMC is not specifically shown in the law as a presumptive condition even if they were to reopen the claim they would deny the claim again based on the original vague diagnosis made by the VAMC. The fact that you argue that it is possible that his condition is a soft tissue cancer is not a reliable argument. You are not a doctor and a possible condition may not result in sufficient evidence to even develop the claim. If have seen this type of argument fail to advance a claim on numerous occasions. When the VAMC makes a vague diagnosis your options are to go back to the VAMC and get a clarification or get an IMO. In other words get new evidence showing that the diagnosis is specifically a presumptive AO condition .

Had the SO preloaded the research for the claim this could have been dealt with. Most service organization do not require that SO’s read the medical evidence prior to filing a claim. They file claims blindly and that is the way they like it. If you are the type of guy who wants to preload the evidence, I hope you get the job.

Failing to file a timely appeal and now finding the veteran in a position to appeal a closed claim would be best advanced by filing new and material evidence rather than relying solely on an argument that the prior denial was poorly written. If it were me I would surround them with evidence including new and material medical evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Troy,

My angioedema was first diagnosed while I was on active duty. It is service connectable because it onset proximate to service. If it had onset after service i would have been shi__ out of luck. Alot of veterans have showed up on hadit trying to get it service connected without in service onset and they have all failed to this date. Even with it being diagnosed in service the VA fought me for 8.5 years. The condition is triggered by common industrial chemicals that i was working with in the military and would encounter if I lived a normal life stlye. I am basically a bubble boy. I have wound up in an ER over twenty five times because employers and friends subjected me to triggers without notifying me. My sense of smell is not adaquate to determine when the chemicals are present. A labor law attorney and ER doctors advised me not to engage in any activity that might trigger an angioedema event. I have full blown events with severe facial swelling and throat involvement. While in the military the events involved less severe symptoms. The progression from mild to severe events can not be related to any post service intercurrent events. This was determined by the center for disease control in Atlanta Georgia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Troy,

By the way there are about five diffent forms of the disease. There are numerous BVA cases in which each of these forms were service connected. All either by in service onset or aggravation. I did not have the condition prior to military. Also, if you read some success stories I have also wrote position papers that won cases that lawyers lost. I have also had opinions from psychiatrists trashed just by exposing the speclulative nature of their determinations. In some cases I got IMO's in others the speculation was so obvious that the VA trashed the bogus C&P exams and gave weight to treating exams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Hoppy-your info was EXCELLENT !!!! And right on the mark!

and one reason claimants fail to succeed on trying to re-open claims..... ,

because they misinterpret what New & Material evidence actually is.

Stretch Thank you- I have been trying to make this point for years to someone !!!!:

“If the court does not have the evidence it can not consider it.

And the CAVC will not accept accept more evidence.

That is why a CAVC remand is better then a denial- it opens the door for more evidence to come in at the VARO or BVA level.

Troy- some thoughts to your posts :

"New and material evidence can neither be cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened, and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim."

Again this begs the questions, what if the decision makers NEVER considered it? “

How relevant was it to the claim?

Example- a vet I know got a “buddy” statement from someone who didn't work in his unit, could not give an eye witness account of what test the veteran claimed he was in,that gave him a current chemical disability, but who told VA of a chemical he ,the buddy, was exposed to around same time and at same military base.

The BVA rejected the Buddy statement as having no relevance at all to the actual claim they were deciding.

Another vet I know , against my wishes, is re-submitting a lengthy IMO he has that VA has rejected already. I read the IMO and it does nothing at all to advance his claim. His point is the denial didn't properly consider some of the IMO statements.

None of the IMO statements help him,yet he insists on re submitting cumulative and redundant evidence that VA has already considered. Th IMO barely even followed the IMO criteria I posted here at hadit and contained some speculative remarks that have nothing to do with his disability.

Troy,

I believe you are referring to the Veterans Benefits Manual by NVLSP.I have purchased the VBM since 1991 and have won all my claims due in great part to the VBM and to careful research.(I also go 3 IMOs too for one of my claims)

“One can certainly argue a misdiagnosis and claim a different one with the proper medical literature and case citations, along with other argued points just enough to get the VA to grant the reopening of the claim; and once they do they are obligated under VCAA to provide a proper exam and assist in acquiring the "material evidence" necessary from the VA medical center (the only place this vet has been treated for this cancer as he has been unemployed ever since and has no other insurance). “

I disagree with all of above - One can certainly file FTCA (but there is a Statute of Limits) and/or 1151 ,(no time limit) if a misdiagnosis is an issue, and support this with a strong IMO. In the VBM and also here in our FTCA forum is a wealth of info on FTCA and 1151 claims. I have put 1151 claim templates and SF 95 info in our FTCA/1151 forum here and my personal experiences and advise on these issues, as a successful FTCA/and 1151er.

I know another vet I met at the local VAMC many years ago who insists he has a Section 1151 issue the VA never decided.

But he never filed a formal Section 1151 claim.He still has the one I wrote for him many years ago-and he never mailed it. He filed his SF 95 one day after the SOL ran out and lost that too. He said the local vet reps refused to help him but I know those reps well, he never went to see them.

He still thinks the VARO somehow will catch the malpractice and then send him some money,against my advise.

My point to you is that the 1151 issue can be one paragraph long, short and sweet, but the formal claim must be filed that well because VA never infers or decides this type of issue until the veteran formally claims disability under 1151.

There is no claim form. A simple letter following my 1151 template here at hadit will do.

BVA citations don't help most claims unless they regard specific legal interpretations. The VA will not consider them as relevant if they regard diagnosis issues or similar vet's disability claims.

Stretch also said:

“Many Vets are over whelmed with the system for one reason or another, and just give up. These Vets need to go to a lawyer. There are just to many for one person to handle alone. Go to any VSO office and look at the claims piled up to the roof.

Also, we here at hadit often are expected to do things no VSO or attorney would ever do,as we take an educated quess and give advise without often knowing what the denial actually said as to the Reasons and Basis nr how the VA or didnt handle the evidence.I am still on a vacation but when return to hadit,I will be adviosing mre vets and particulariy all widows to get a vet rep then if denied ,get a lawyer, unl;ess we have enough info here from them to really be able to see why they were denied and what they can do about the denial.

Sometimes what we are told here that the VA said in a letter isn't the way it really is because the VA writes decisions (as well as the BVA and court)in a way that often has to be assessed word for word.

As to this veteran you are helping-I am familiar with the STS cancers and know that there can be many medical terms sometimes for one type of cancer.

He needs a definitive diagnosis,however, and VA needs that from a doctor and I suggest getting an IMO from a real doctor in this case , a doctor who can also opine on what appears to me to be a possible potential 1151 issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Thank you all for your very informative replies!!! Especially you Berta...kind of you to check in and reply while you're on vacation.

All of your views are exactly what I needed in order to put this matter into perspective and the proper context before deciding how to proceed. On that note...I will take everything and mull over it and come back with more information and a plausible course of action in this matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

“Does it not stand to reason (then again we are talking about the VA)...that evidence not considered is tantamount to evidence not received?”

Although the Board has an obligation to

provide reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no

need to discuss, in detail, the evidence submitted by the

appellant or on his behalf. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378,

1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the Board must review the entire

record, but does not have to discuss each piece of evidence).

The analysis below focuses on the most salient and relevant

evidence and on what this evidence shows, or fails to show, on

the claim. The appellant must not assume that the Board has

overlooked pieces of evidence that are not explicitly discussed

herein. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000) (the

law requires only that the Board address its reasons for

rejecting evidence favorable to the claimant).

For reasons stated below if the diagnosis noted in the VAMC reports was not sufficiently clear to identify a specific diagnosis of a presumptive AO cancer then there was no evidence facially and materially favorable to the veterans claim. Furthermore, they had no obligation to develop the claim based on a vague association in the VAMC reports of the cancer to a presumptive AO condition. I have seen no new laws over writing Goober v. Derwinski

Gobber v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 470, 472 (1992) (the "'duty

to assist' is not a license for a 'fishing expedition' to

determine if there might be some unspecified information which

could possibly support a claim . . . [and] this duty is limited

to specifically identified documents that by their description

would be facially relevant and material to the claim").

Just a quick note on your points here...

McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006) reiterated under the VCAA that a VA exam and/or opinion is required if there is:

1. competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability;

2. evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period; and

3. an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptons of a disability may be associated with service or with another s/c disability; but

4. insufficient competent medical evidence on file for VA to decide the claim.

Nowhere in this veterans decision was there any indication that he was given a C&P exam for his rectal cancer, rather just the VAMC medical reports were referenced.

A C&P exam is required as a part of developing and processing a claim for disability, is it not? According to this case (and others), it is.

Also, in Green (Victor) v. Derwinski, 1 Vet App 121 (1991) held that the duty to assist requires "the conduct of a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination, one which takes into account the records of prior medical treatment, so that the evaluation of the claimed disability will be a fully informed one."

In Gobber, was this case referenced thus overturning this decision (I have not had a chance to review Gobber, and you clearly have so I thought I would ask)?

http://www.nvlsp.org/images/TVA%20JanJun08sample.pdf ("Top 10" Court Cases for Advocates)

TS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

In regards To the before Mentioned rectal cancer. Still rectal cancer is not considered an AO presumptive, and is not to my understanding part of the soft tissue. It would take a good IMO probably. No exam would be garnered for a condition that is not an AO presumptive3.309(e) existed one year prior to service 3.309(a) or if wasn't in the STRs. What would be te meaning of opening the claim without a strong private

Doctor opinion? JMHO

Note 1: The term “soft-tissue sarcoma” includes the following: Adult fibrosarcoma Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans Malignant fibrous histiocytoma Liposarcoma Leiomyosarcoma Epithelioid leiomyosarcoma (malignant leiomyoblastoma) Rhabdomyosarcoma Ectomesenchymoma Angiosarcoma (hemangiosarcoma and lymphangiosarcoma) Proliferating (systemic) angioendotheliomatosis Malignant glomus tumor Malignant hemangiopericytoma Synovial sarcoma (malignant synovioma) Malignant giant cell tumor of tendon sheath Malignant schwannoma, including malignant schwannoma with rhabdomyoblastic differentiation (malignant Triton tumor), glandular and epithelioid malignant schwannomas Malignant mesenchymoma Malignant granular cell tumor Alveolar soft part sarcoma Epithelioid sarcoma Clear cell sarcoma of tendons and aponeuroses Extraskeletal Ewing's sarcoma Congenital and infantile fibrosarcoma Malignant ganglioneuroma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

In regards To the before Mentioned rectal cancer. Still rectal cancer is not considered an AO presumptive, and is not to my understanding part of the soft tissue. It would take a good IMO probably. No exam would be garnered for a condition that is not an AO presumptive3.309(e) existed one year prior to service 3.309(a) or if wasn't in the STRs. What would be te meaning of opening the claim without a strong private

Doctor opinion? JMHO

Note 1: The term "soft-tissue sarcoma" includes the following: Adult fibrosarcoma Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans Malignant fibrous histiocytoma Liposarcoma Leiomyosarcoma Epithelioid leiomyosarcoma (malignant leiomyoblastoma) Rhabdomyosarcoma Ectomesenchymoma Angiosarcoma (hemangiosarcoma and lymphangiosarcoma) Proliferating (systemic) angioendotheliomatosis Malignant glomus tumor Malignant hemangiopericytoma Synovial sarcoma (malignant synovioma) Malignant giant cell tumor of tendon sheath Malignant schwannoma, including malignant schwannoma with rhabdomyoblastic differentiation (malignant Triton tumor), glandular and epithelioid malignant schwannomas Malignant mesenchymoma Malignant granular cell tumor Alveolar soft part sarcoma Epithelioid sarcoma Clear cell sarcoma of tendons and aponeuroses Extraskeletal Ewing's sarcoma Congenital and infantile fibrosarcoma Malignant ganglioneuroma

Angiosarcoma of the colon and rectum is a soft tissue sarcoma and it is listed as one of the presumptive conditions of AO exposure, as well as Leiomyosarcoma of the rectum. Also, there is no one year requirement for soft tissue sarcomas where AO exposure is concerned..."the veteran qualifies no matter when these diseases first appear."

The sad thing about this veterans claim is the poor usage of the phrase "colon cancer" claimed as the condition related to AO exposure without giving it the proper classification by the VSO who originally filed the claim.

After reading all of the medical reports on this veteran, I believe that which was described of his cancer more aptly fits what Angiosarcoma or Leiomyosarcoma as the cancer he was treated for. And yes, clearly it may very well take an IMO to get this...either way there are more soft tissue cancers listed under AO exposure presumtive conditions than commonly known or understood. That is why I bought the Lexis Nexis books, because they are far more thorough and concise than mere searches on the internet or reviewing past BVA rulings alone.

Also of note, a sarcoma is a cancer of the connective or supportive and soft tissue and are common malignancies found in the breasts and colon...

Sarcomas involve muscle and soft tissues...and the colon is a muscle lined with soft tissue.

Again, just to reiterate, Angiosarcoma of the colon and rectum is a soft tissue sarcoma and it is listed as one of the presumptive conditions of AO exposure, as well as Leiomyosarcoma of the rectum.

Sadly most VSOs and veterans don't know that they are, among other soft tissue sarcomas listed under the presumptive conditions of AO exposure, which is why so many claims for "colon" or "rectal" cancer due to AO exposure are denied at both the RO and BVA level, because they're not properly classified and claimed for what they really are by medical terminology vs. layman's terminology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Mods, feel free to move this topic to the appropriate forum if I have posted it within the wrong one.

I am getting ready to go head to head with the VA helping another Vietnam veteran reopen a claim vs. filing it as a new one because the original claim was not only incorrectly filed by the county VSO (that I hope to replace soon, interview is tomorrow for the job),

but the VA RO in its denial really didn't address any evidence for or against the claim and was rather vague about it.

What exactly, did the "county VSO" submit a claim for?

What exactly, was denied?

What exactly, is stated in the Reasons and Bases Section?

I made a great investment buying two books from Lexis Nexis that focuses on case law, etc. and the CFR/USCS on veterans benefits, and in reading it I cannot help but question something. Here is what I gleaned from the text:

This is probably the VBM and related USC/CFR books.

Lexis Nexis distributes but these are written by attorneys at NVLSP.

Great - must have books - my guess is that the majority of VSO'/SO's are not even familiar with them.

"The new definition of "new and material evidence" has changed and is applicable to any claim finally denied received on or after August 29, 2001.

New evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decision makers."

>Okay...so what if a veteran, by whatever means, submitted "evidence" to the RO [bUT] the RO 'never' really considered it and/or cited it in their decision of denial?

Just because "evidence" is submitted to agency decision makers does NOT necessarily mean that that evidence was actually reviewed much less considered by the [decision makers].

If the evidence in question is listed in the evidence section of the decision, it is factored in as having been considered.

Remember the VA decision maker owns the scale, they have the authority on weighing the evidence,

also it's credible and probative value.

The VBA does not have to list or discuss each item of evidence individually.

Example Evidence List:

SMR's dated 1/27/1965 thru 12/22/1968

VAMC medical records dated 5/3/1972 thru 6/4/1975, 2/24/1977 thru 7/24/1999.

Now a piece of medical evidence that is extremely specific in diagnosis/treatment,

to factor in for support for a grant of SC, IMO there is a reg that states this specific type

of evidence must be considered in the decision and why VBA did not use the positive evidence

to grant the claim.

The regs are very clear on N&M evidence.

Thoughts?

"Material evidence means existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim."

>What if all the evidence on file is generated by the VA Medical Center, and as we are all human, to be human is to er. That being said, the rectal cancer that this veteran was diagnosed with was given a particular name, which could qualify as a 'soft tissue sarcoma,' a presumtive condition of AO exposure.

4.2 Interpretation of examination reports.

Different examiners, at different times, will not describe the same disability in the same language. Features of the disability which must have persisted unchanged may be overlooked or a change for the better or worse may not be accurately appreciated or described. It is the responsibility of the rating specialist to interpret reports of examination in the light of the whole recorded history, reconciling the various reports into a consistent picture so that the current rating may accurately reflect the elements of disability present. Each disability must be considered from the point of view of the veteran working or seeking work. If a diagnosis is not supported by the findings on the examination report or if the report does not contain sufficient detail, it is incumbent upon the rating board to return the report as inadequate for evaluation purposes.

[41 FR 11292, Mar. 18, 1976]

Then again, it could have been misdiagnosed altogether yet operated on just the same (and incorrectly with three follow-up corrective surgeries that included a stint in the bladder sphincter muscle - which in and of itself is another claim, either tort (malpractice) or subject to disability compensation according to some citations I read in the Lexis Nexis books).

In relation to a VAMC "misdiagnosed", "corrective surgeries" or VAMC "malpractice - this could be claimed

under FTCA if done within two years of knowing, AND/OR an 1151 for additional residual disability.

"New and material evidence can neither be cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened, and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim."

>Again this begs the questions, what if the decision makers NEVER considered it?

Again - check the Evidence Section.

Keep in mind,

§ 3.156 New and material evidence.

(2) Paragraph ©(1) of this section does not apply to records that VA could not have obtained when it decided the claim because the records did not exist when VA decided the claim, or because the claimant failed to provide sufficient information for VA to identify and obtain the records from the respective service department, the Joint Services Records Research Center, or from any other official source.

The advocacy tip in these books state that an advocate needs to focus on the reason(s) for the denial in asking to reopen a claim.

Very true, of course it's true - but it's true for any and all claim issue that have been denied, or adjudicated

with a lowball percentage. Always focus on the reason/s for denial - exactly what evidence was or was not

factored into the evaluation of percentage and all the what's, why's and when's for all individual effective dates.

Given the decision of denial on this veteran, which is vague and makes NO reference to any diagnosis or specific evidence; I feel that reopening it won't be that difficult, it's their anticipated denial based on "new and material evidence" I want to nip in the butt before they can give it.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If there is a medical report offered as evidence and the VA neither considers it or lists it that makes two prongs of the three steps for a CUE. The third step depends on if the excluded evidence would have changed the outcome of the rating decision. Then that gets into other areas of "reasonable minds" and "undebatable certainty" which are really the judgement of the VA. That is when you need a lawyer.

john,

This is one of the few times I have to say that I do not agree with the above,

as posted, I see it as being too much of a blanket statement -

and I think you will understand this.

So, I'm just clarifying a little for newbies.

I'm probably just being anal - (NO PUN on the veterans condition).

JMHO

A determination of CUE is a three-pronged test:

(1) either the correct facts, as they were known at the time, were not before the adjudicator

(i.e., there must be more than a simple disagreement as to how the facts were weighed or evaluated)

or the statutory or regulatory provisions extant at the time were incorrectly applied;

(2) the error must be undebatable and of the sort which, had it not been made, would have manifestly

changed the outcome at the time it was made; and

(3) a determination that there was CUE must be based on the record and law that existed at the time

of the prior adjudication in question. Russell v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 310 (1992).

CUE is a very specific and rare kind of error. It is the kind of error, of fact or of law,

that when called to the attention of later reviewers compels the conclusion,

to which reasonable minds could not differ,

that the result would have been manifestly different but for the error. Fugo v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 40, 43-44 (1993).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Angiosarcoma of the colon and rectum is a soft tissue sarcoma and it is listed as one of the presumptive conditions of AO exposure, as well as Leiomyosarcoma of the rectum. Also, there is no one year requirement for soft tissue sarcomas where AO exposure is concerned..."the veteran qualifies no matter when these diseases first appear."

The sad thing about this veterans claim is the poor usage of the phrase "colon cancer" claimed as the condition related to AO exposure without giving it the proper classification by the VSO who originally filed the claim.

After reading all of the medical reports on this veteran, I believe that which was described of his cancer more aptly fits what Angiosarcoma or Leiomyosarcoma as the cancer he was treated for. And yes, clearly it may very well take an IMO to get this...either way there are more soft tissue cancers listed under AO exposure presumtive conditions than commonly known or understood. That is why I bought the Lexis Nexis books, because they are far more thorough and concise than mere searches on the internet or reviewing past BVA rulings alone.

Also of note, a sarcoma is a cancer of the connective or supportive and soft tissue and are common malignancies found in the breasts and colon...

Sarcomas involve muscle and soft tissues...and the colon is a muscle lined with soft tissue.

Again, just to reiterate, Angiosarcoma of the colon and rectum is a soft tissue sarcoma and it is listed as one of the presumptive conditions of AO exposure, as well as Leiomyosarcoma of the rectum.

Sadly most VSOs and veterans don't know that they are, among other soft tissue sarcomas listed under the presumptive conditions of AO exposure, which is why so many claims for "colon" or "rectal" cancer due to AO exposure are denied at both the RO and BVA level, because they're not properly classified and claimed for what they really are by medical terminology vs. layman's terminology.

I spoke too soon Troy a d I apologize. I have never seen recttal cancer sc before. Then again brain cancer never was before until I saw an article. On here. Good luck. Hope you get the opinion you need or information. Since it was previously denied before you will have an uphill battle, but the eteranseems to have an advocate on his side.

Respectfully

T8r

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Gobber is thrown into the mix when there is a question as to whether or not the evidence supported the claimed condition. Basically it is just a way of saying you do not have a CUE just because there was a question as to the validity of the interpretation of evidence of record at the time of a prior determination. I use McLendon often when claims are denied without a C&P exam to pressure the VA into scheduling a C&P. The problem with McLendon is it does not address how the raters are to determine if the claimed condition is the same condition as treated in the military or the presumptive condition you are seeking. It takes all four requirements of Mclendon. The raters can say they did not need a C&P due to the fourth provision of Mclendon. They can easily say we thought there was sufficient evidence to “decide” the claim without a C&P and they have circumvented Mclendon. The fact that you can later show that there was not sufficient evidence by submitting new evidence does not change the prior determination.

You are trying to reopen a claim. The failure to provide a C&P is a failure in the duty to assist. Failure in the duty to assist is not a CUE. You need a CUE or new and material evidence to re-open a claim. If the claim had not been closed your argument might get you a C&P.

There are many who believe the VCAA did little to cause the VA to liberalize scheduling C&P exams. However, to answer your question, C&P exams are not required to deny, award or rate a claim (see 4 of McLendon). I would guess more than half the denials I read on the BVA are denied without a C&P. I won service connection on my angioedema claim with only an IMO. They applied #4 of Mclendon. The decided the evidence on file was competent without a C&P.

Many veterans also try to cite the liberalized interpretation of the evidence rule. The bottom line is that if the raters want to play dumb and the diagnosis does not jump of the page they can and will ignore you unless you get a doctor to connect the dots for them.

The VA refused several requests to give me a C&P. Why did they not give me a C&P? It is because the diagnostic terms changed between the time I was in the military and the time I filed the claim. The result is the same problem you are having now. The diagnostic terms used in the military were descriptive of the symptoms. Angioedema was the diagnostic term I used on my application. The term in the rating schedule is Angioneurotic edema. The raters did not connect the dots between the terms describing the symptoms and the diagnosis of angioedema. I specifically stated the problem between diagnostic terms and descriptive terms of symptoms and the VA still refused to schedule a C&P. Eventually, I took my SMR to the head of immunology at a VA hospital and he wrote an IMO that awarded my claim.

This is why I suggested you get and IMO with new and material and not rely solely on legal arguments to cause them to re-open the claim. The conditions and terms can get confusing and the raters are not required to pull rabbits out of their hats. They are not required to resolve semantic issues unless you clearly point out that there is a semantic issue when pre loading and filing the claim. Again, it is better to get a doctor to address the semantic issues. They did not listen to me for five years when I told them the condition noted in my SMR were symptoms solely associated with angioedema. I even gave the RO copies of the ICD9 showing that the descriptive terms of symptoms in the SMR had the same code as angioedema. I even provided five post service treatment notes showing that sometimes the doctors called my post service symptoms by the same terms used in my SMR and sometimes by the diagnostic term angioedema. It really pissed me off that they would not listen to me. Eventually, Clark Evans an attorney who found me on hadit convinced me to get an IMO.

If you really want an exercise in semantic issues and how do the terms apply read boggs V. peake. This is a slight preview of what they go into “…..Second, distinguishing claims based upon distinct medical diagnoses is more accurate and reliable than distinguishing claims according to subjective descriptions of the veteran's symptoms.2 Where the veteran brings a claim for benefits based upon a medical diagnosis of a particular disease or injury, the VA must consider whether that precise, medically defined disease or injury is service connected.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Troy said

"Sadly most VSOs and veterans don't know that they are, among other soft tissue sarcomas listed under the presumptive conditions of AO exposure, which is why so many claims for "colon" or "rectal" cancer due to AO exposure are denied at both the RO and BVA level, because they're not properly classified and claimed for what they really are by medical terminology vs. layman's terminology."

SO TRUE!!!!

Also one must consider if a cancer that seems to be a STS AO cancer, or any one of the other AO types of cancer, if in fact, it has metastasized from a non AO form of cancer. That possibility can be fatal to a AO claim,if the actual etiology is not a AO presumptive for of cancer.

STS cancers on the AO list are often very rare forms of cancer.

And you are SO correct here-I personally new some reps who had never considered the AO STS list regarding some of their Vietnam veteran's claims for cancer.

While these are rare, still no stone can be left unturned.

I know a local veteran who was trying to get into some class action case regarding a form of cancer years ago I forget what the class action was really about. Not a VA issue.

The lawyer sent him a letter indicating his specific cancer was not the type of cancer that the class action was all about.

I fired off a letter to the lawyer because I had prepared this vet's paperwork, with evidence that this cancer had many different descriptive medical terms and he had misinterpreted the veteran's form of cancer. As evidence I enclosed some print outs from Mayo and one of the major cancer institutes.

The lawyer sent him another letter including him in the class action case.

I lost touch and have no idea how that all turned out.

One of the biggest problems I see (and a problem that caused the VA to deny many claims years ago under the 'not well grounded theory' prior to the VCAA,

is exactly what you stated.

When we file a claim for a condition that the medical evidence does not support,because it is the wrong condition terminlogy,

we will more than likely be denied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

To add to Hoppy's post here:

Hoppy always gives great citations:

Boggs V Peak is a US Federal Circuit Court decision

This appears to be a Bad Water Le Jeune veteran situation ( comtaminated water at Camp LeJeune, I posted info on that at hadit before)

The BVA decision ( a 2010 remand-and this might be the same first LeJeune SC vet sced due to bad water)

states the citations Hoppy gave and states this:

“In doing so, the Board acknowledges that a change in diagnosis or

the specificity of the claim must be carefully considered in

determining whether the claim is based on a distinct factual

basis. Boggs v. Peake, 520 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

In

Boggs, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

found that a claim for one diagnosed disease or injury cannot be

prejudiced by a prior claim for a different diagnosed disease or

injury, when it is an independent claim based on distinct factual

bases. However, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans

Claims (Court) clarified in Velez v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 199

(2009), that the focus of the analysis must be whether the

evidence truly amounted to a new claim based upon a different

diagnosed disease or whether the evidence substantiates an

element of a previously adjudicated matter.”

This is a powerful application of Boggs that could impact on many vets here.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp10/files4/1033910.txt

I need to really digest this entire BVA decision.Lots of good legalise in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The VA refused several requests to give me a C&P. Why did they not give me a C&P? It is because the diagnostic terms changed between the time I was in the military and the time I filed the claim.

For now, it's late, but this is the only point I want to address tonight.

Then or now or in the future it makes no difference where the VA cares as far as the CFRs and USCS are concerned...because no matter how out of date they are with current medical knowledge (e.g. FMS is a "chronic" medical condiiton, and not what the current CFRs state as a episodic (20% rating) vs. chronic (40% rating) condition is concerned. Thus, the VA regulations either by statute or promulgated administrative rules are outdated where the current medical information is concerned.

Which is EXACTLY why I won on appeal at the BVA within 3 months of receipt of my appeal at the BVA!!!!!!

I will address the rest of your response later...notwithstanding, thank you for your conitnued participation in this discussion.

TS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Troy said

"Sadly most VSOs and veterans don't know that they are, among other soft tissue sarcomas listed under the presumptive conditions of AO exposure, which is why so many claims for "colon" or "rectal" cancer due to AO exposure are denied at both the RO and BVA level, because they're not properly classified and claimed for what they really are by medical terminology vs. layman's terminology."

SO TRUE!!!!

Also one must consider if a cancer that seems to be a STS AO cancer, or any one of the other AO types of cancer, if in fact, it has metastasized from a non AO form of cancer. That possibility can be fatal to a AO claim,if the actual etiology is not a AO presumptive for of cancer.

STS cancers on the AO list are often very rare forms of cancer.

And you are SO correct here-I personally new some reps who had never considered the AO STS list regarding some of their Vietnam veteran's claims for cancer.

While these are rare, still no stone can be left unturned.

Thank you!!! smile.png That is EXACTLY what I intend to do...leave no stone unturned!!!

Tomorrow I learn whether or not I get the county VSO position...

TS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Tomorrow I learn whether or not I get the county VSO position...

TS

Troy,

Good luck - hope it works out the way you want : - )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Good Luck Troy!!!!

Our veterans and dependents need all the help they can get these days.I sure hope you get this job (wish you were my county's VSO) and I know you will do a good job if this turns out good for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I filed in June 1991 and my experience was they might have seen evidence but ignored it. I had medical evidence that was in my SMR's that should have granted 100% but I needed two private IMO's and three C&P's and the comment when I was granted 100% P&T in Nov 1996 that the award should have been made many years ago. Even than the award I should have gotten for an S rating for Housebound was not given till I asked specifically although it was supposed to have been considered with the 100% was not.

Troy do you take Veterans to be their Service Officers that are not in your state. My current one took over for Larry Payne a Hadit Member and does not even return email or phone calls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites















  • HadIt.com Twitter