VA Disability Claims - HadIt.com

For Veterans Who've Had It With The VA

Home » Featured

Featured

2019 Cost of Living Allowance

Veterans Affairs disability compensations COLA is based on SSA’s COLA. 2019 We will see a 2.8% COLA if you receive VA, SSI, or SSDI they all receive the same COLA.

Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits for more than 67 million Americans will increase 2.8 percent in 2019.

The 2.8 percent cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) will begin with benefits payable to more than 62 million Social Security beneficiaries in January 2019. Increased payments to more than 8 million SSI beneficiaries will begin on December 31, 2018. (Note: some people receive both Social Security and SSI benefits.)

Current VA Compensation Rates

Read more about the Social Security Cost-of-Living adjustment for 2019.

  • The maximum amount of earnings subject to the Social Security tax (taxable maximum) will increase to $132,900.
  • The earnings limit for workers who are younger than “full” retirement age (age 66 for people born in 1943 through 1954) will increase to $17,640. (We deduct $1 from benefits for each $2 earned over $17,640.)
  • The earnings limit for people turning 66 in 2019 will increase to $46,920. (We deduct $1 from benefits for each $3 earned over $46,920 until the month the worker turns age 66.)
  • There is no limit on earnings for workers who are “full” retirement age or older for the entire year.

Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act

The new VA appeals process explained by Matt Hill, grab a cup of coffee and a notepad, as to be expected from VA, it’s not a simple straightforward line.

The VA appeals process is going through its biggest change since the 1980s. In 2017, Congress passed the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act. This act takes apart the current appeal system and replaces it with a new process aimed to improve the experience for all involved in the process.

First, let’s recap what the system currently looks like. Ready?

Claimant files a claim. The VA regional office, RO, sends VCAA letter. After that, RO mails notice of its decision. Claimant files notice of disagreement. The claimant must file NOD within one year of mailing of rating decision.

The claimant has the option of requesting a DRO review, but the claimant must request DRO review within 60 days of VA letter offering it. If the claim is denied, VA mails a statement of the case, SOC. Note, if the VA grants the claim, then you go back to the beginning of this process. The claimant has 60 days to file the Substantive Appeal VA Form 9 from the date of the SOC or a year from the date of the rating decision, whichever is later.

Board of Appeals decides the case, appeals to the CAVC within 120 days. Of course, if a claim is granted at any point, then it goes back to the beginning of this cycle, and the appeal process starts all over again. Ugh.

Let’s take a brief look at what stays the same and what is changing. Then we can talk about how the process works.

There will still be a rating decision after every claim is filed. A claimant will still have the opportunity to have a more seasoned adjudicator review the decision in the regional office. The claimant can still appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.


What’s gone? State of the case, gone. VA Form 9, gone. Reopened claims? Not anymore. The need for new and material evidence, gone. DRO decision, gone. What is replacing these? Supplemental claims, relevant evidence, higher level review, one NOD filed directly to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. The middleman is gone.

In the current system, when a veteran is dissatisfied with a decision and wants to preserve the date of the claim, he has only one route: file an NOD. Forgot to file a necessary document? File an NOD. Missing a piece of evidence? File an NOD. The VA made a mistake of law? File an NOD.

Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act

Now, when a veteran files a new claim, the VA will issue a rating decision that must contain the following: what issues were decided, summary of evidence considered by the VA, summary of applicable laws and regulations, identification of findings favorable to the claimant, explanation of why claim was denied, explanation of how to get evidence used in making the decision, and identification of criteria that must be satisfied to grant service connection or the next higher level of compensation. After this rating decision, you have one year to take action. You are to appeal for a higher review at the RO, file new evidence or file an NOD to go to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.

Higher Level Review

You have one year from the initial claim to seek this route. This lane allows for a quality check on the original opinion while still at the VA regional office. Now, you cannot submit additional evidence or request a hearing here. The review is de novo, which is fancy Latin meaning review without giving weight to the prior decision. If the decision is favorable, your original claim date is preserved. If it is unfavorable, you have an option to file a supplemental claim or to file an NOD to appeal to the board.

Supplemental Claim

Welcome to the new evidence lane. You have one year from the date of your decision to file additional evidence. Under the new law, this is now referred to as a supplemental claim. In this lane, you may submit additional evidence that is new and relevant. Upon receipt of your new evidence, VA will attempt to make a decision within 125 days. Your effective date, the day from which the VA will pay your benefits, will be the day you file the first claim.

Once the adjudicator makes a decision, you must ask yourself, are you satisfied with this decision? At this point, you get to choose from the three options again: one, as you’ve already done, you can submit additional evidence within a year and preserve the date of your claim; two, you can request a higher level review; or three, board review lane.

Board Review Lane

This is where you file an NOD and your case moves from the regional office to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. Here, there will be three lanes to choose from: one, fully developed appeal, a claim that is ready for decision by the BVA and there is no further evidence to submit; two, hearing request with the chance to submit additional evidence; or three, request to submit evidence but not hold a hearing. If the decision is favorable, your original claim date is preserved. If it is unfavorable, you have an option to file a supplemental claim within a year, or you can file an appeal to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. You only have 120 days to file this appeal though.

File an appeal with the CAVC and win, and your original claim date is preserved. If you do not prevail, then you have a year to file a supplemental claim. Should you win after that, you still preserve your original claim date.

Reprinted with permission from Hill and Ponton Disability Attorneys

More

Further Reading

Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection.

Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection see COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL

This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:

  1. Current Diagnosis.   (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)
  2. In Service Event or Aggravation.
  3. Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”

This is also known as the “Hickson Elements” for a later case. Why you need to know:  If all 3 of these things are not documented in your medical and service records, then you will need to obtain this documentation before getting service connected.  This applies if you applied last week, or 10 years ago.

Note:  Secondary Service Connection and Presumptive’s are a little easier.  If you have a diagnosis, and a doctor says that your diagnosis is at least as likely as not a result of your (service connected condition), then you need not AGAIN establish an in service event or aggravation.    A presumptive Service connection means if you meet the applicable criteria, then your condition is “presumed” to be caused by military service.  You are still gonna need a current diagnosis, but you may get a bye on the nexus if you meet the requisite criteria for presumptive conditions.

Hickson Elements

In order to establish service connection for the claimed disorder, there must be

  1. medical evidence of a current disability;
  2.  medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of the incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service or during the presumptive period; and
  3. medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999).

More on Caluza Triangle from member Broncovet:

uscova-90-0818-caluza-v-brown

Potential Exposure at Fort McClellan

From Hill and Ponton

Fort McClellan, AL, served as training and scientific research ground for some of the most volatile chemical, biological, and radiological materials used by the US military. As the US was gearing up to enter WWI, President Woodrow Wilson purchased the property, and it was utilized to train and mobilize troops headed off to the Great War. After the armistice, it served as a demobilization station until 1922 when it began its long history in the training of chemical warfare with the assignment of a Chemical Warfare Service Officer who inspected the installation’s suitability for chemical warfare training and demonstrations. In 1999, the installation was closed due to BRAC legislation. This legislation included a requirement for environmental cleanup before the transfer of the property to public domain status. Almost 100 years after the creation of Fort McClellan, in 2013, an Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) assessment stated that the property is “not expected to result in an increased cancer risk or other harmful health effects in people living in the neighborhoods outside the perimeter of the former PCB manufacturing facility (Monsanto).”

Toxic Exposure

Fort McClellan’s toxic exposure history is long and involved outside industry as well as the US Army’s own chemical, biological, and radiological materials. Starting in the 1920s, Fort McClellan and Anniston, AL, were home to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mace, tear gas, mustard gas, white phosphorus, Cobalt (Co-60), uranium, plutonium, Cesium (Cs-137) Napalm-B, Agent Orange, nerve and blister agents. Over 600,000 troops were exposed between 1927 and 1999 to an array of toxins through direct exposure in chemical weapons training, or indirect exposure through the air, soil, and water that was polluted by the toxins from the installation and the nearby Monsanto plant.  Monsanto settled a class action lawsuit with the residents of Anniston, AL in 2003, but veterans who lived and trained at the fort were not included in that lawsuit.  Read about additional superfund cleanup sites at Army and Air Force bases in our blog “Is Jet Fuel Another Agent Orange?”

https://www.hillandponton.com/fort-mcclellan-toxic-exposures-veterans-need-know/

From Veterans Affairs 

Photo: U.S. Army
Fort McClellan was an Army installation in Alabama that opened in 1917.
Some members of the U.S. Army Chemical Corp School, Army Combat Development Command Chemical/Biological/Radiological Agency, Army Military Police School and Women’s Army Corps, among others, may have been exposed to one or more of several hazardous materials, likely at low levels, during their service at Fort McClellan. Potential exposures could have included, but are not limited to, the following:
  • Radioactive compounds (cesium-137 and cobalt-60) used in decontamination training activities in isolated locations on base.
  • Chemical warfare agents (mustard gas and nerve agents) used in decontamination testing activities in isolated locations on base.
  • Airborne polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from the Monsanto plant in the neighboring town.
Although exposures to high levels of these compounds have been shown to cause a variety of adverse health effects in humans and laboratory animals, there is no evidence of exposures of this magnitude having occurred at Fort McClellan.

PCBs and the Monsanto chemical plant

From 1929 to 1971, an off-post Monsanto chemical plant operated south of Fort McClellan in Anniston. PCBs from the plant entered into the environment, and the surrounding community was exposed.
Since the 1990s, several investigations have been conducted to characterize the exposure of Anniston residents to PCBs from the Monsanto plant. In 2015, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) published an assessment of the potential health risks caused by airborne PCBs in Anniston and concluded that the concentrations found were “not expected to result in an increased cancer risk or other harmful health effects in people living in the neighborhoods outside the perimeter of the former PCB manufacturing facility.”

Fort McClellan today

Fort McClellan closed in 1999 as part of the Army Base Closure and Realignment Committee (BRAC) program. The BRAC legislation required the environmental cleanup of Fort McClellan prior to its transfer to the public domain. Oversight of parts of the base have since been transferred to the Alabama Army National Guard, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Justice, and the Department of the Interior, as well as to the community of Anniston, where the re-development and re-use of the land is overseen by the McClellan Development Authority.

Veteran health care and compensation benefits

Veterans who are experiencing health issues that they associate with their service while at Fort McClellan should see their primary care provider or contact their local Environmental Health Coordinator.
Veterans may also file a claim for disability compensation. VA decides these claims on a case-by-case basis.

Useful resources

VA Decision Ready Claims

The Decision Ready Claim (DRC) Program is the fastest way to get your claim processed. With the DRC Program you can get a decision on your claim within 30 days when you work with an accredited Veterans Service Organization (VSO). Your VSO will help you gather and submit all relevant records and evidence, including federal and medical records and Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs), and will request your VA claim exam, so your claim is ready for VA to make a decision when you submit it.

What types of claims are eligible for the DRC Program?

Currently, the DRC Program is limited to compensation claims for increase. The disability must already be service-connected, and you must have medical evidence to show the condition has gotten worse since your
last rating.

You cannot le your claim through the DRC Program if you currently have another disability claim pending, if you have an appeal pending for the condition you want an increase for, or if your claim is related to pension or special monthly compensation (SMC). To see a full list of exclusions that would remove your claim from the DRC Program, go to www.bene ts. va.gov/compensation/drc.asp.

VA is working to expand the DRC Program to include more types of claims. Check back with your Veterans Service Organization (VSO) to see if any updates have been made to the DRC Program.

How do I file a claim under the DRC Program?

You must work with an accredited VSO to le a claim through the DRC Program. You can nd an accredited VSO near you and appoint them to serve as your representative free of charge by going to www.ebene ts. va.gov/ebene ts/vso-search.

Your accredited VSO will help you determine if the DRC Program is right for your claim. They are fully trained on the DRC Program and can serve as a quali ed advocate for you.

What information do I need to submit so that my claim is decision-ready?

Bring copies of your federal records, medical records, completed Disability Bene ts Questionnaires (DBQs), and any other supporting evidence when you meet with your VSO. Your VSO can also help you gather any medical information you are missing to make sure your claim is complete.

As part of the DRC Program, VSOs can now quickly request a VA claim exam for you, also sometimes called a Compensation & Pension (C&P) exam, before you submit your claim. Providing all relevant evidence when you submit your DRC allows VA to process your claim faster.

For more information about the DRC Program, go to www.bene ts.va.gov/compensation/drc.asp or call 1-800-827-1000 (toll-free).

Less Likely, More Likely Than Not – and why reasonable doubt rule is one of the most important liberalizing rules that Veterans Affairs uses…

If you spend any time reading VA case law you’ll come across the phrase less likely, more likely than not and so on. In the VA Clinicians Guide for Disability Examination it lays out how these are weighted.

Independent Medical Opinions by Your Private Physician

An Independent Medical Opinion (IMO) from a treating physician is in many instances a critical part of a veteran’s disability compensation claim. An IMO may sway the “benefit of the doubt” in favor of a veteran’s claim, or it may actually be the missing ‘link’ or nexus in a claim. When a veteran asks his or her physician to compose an IMO, there are a couple of things that should be noted in it. One of most important things that should be done and mentioned in the IMO is that the medical professional has reviewed the entire medical record including the veteran’s SMR’s. The medical professional should also state his or her area of expertise and additional training.

For example, if the doctor is board certified in radiology, they should state that; especially when rending any comments in regards to radiological film studies. Also, it is very important that the physician give their rational as to why they have come to a certain conclusion. The physician, when giving his/her rational, should also cite any relevant medical literature that may support the findings. By doing all of this, the IMO becomes probative. There is also certain language the physician needs to use when opining whether or not the disability(ies) at hand is/are related to the veteran’s service. The following phrases are from the Department of Veterans Affairs “Clinician’s Guide for Disability Examination;”

  • “is due to” (100% sure)
  • “more likely than not” (greater than 50%)
  • “at least as likely as not” (equal to or greater than 50%)
  • “not at least as likely as not” (less than 50%)
  • “is not due to” (0%)

The phrase “at least as likely as not” is the legal phrase that is needed for VA to award service-connection for a particular disability based on the “Benefit of the Doubt” when an IMO should be the deciding factor in the evidence of record.

Note: You shouldn’t send your regional office any medical articles printed from the internet. They only pertain to the general population and aren’t afforded very much weight when they are being evaluated by the decision maker. The VA needs something from a doctor that states your disability(ies) are related to your service, not something meant for the general public.

Reasonable Doubt Rule

The Reasonable Doubt rule is one of the most important liberalizing rules that VA uses to grant veterans benefits and is defined under 38 CFR, §3.102. The Reasonable Doubt rule means that when there is an equal balance of evidence for and against the claimant, that the claimant be awarded there claim. This is just like in baseball as the “tie goes to the runner.” Keep in mind this doesn’t mean that just because there is ten pieces of evidence for your claim and 10 against that you will be granted your claim. It means that after consideration by the decision maker at VA, they have weighed the evidence and in their judgment there is an equal balance, then they must resolve reasonable doubt in the claimants favor. It also doesn’t mean that if, for example, there is 5 pieces of evidence in favor of a claim and only one against, that a claim will automatically be granted because there is a preponderance of evidence (meaning more evidence in favor of the claim than against) in your favor. The decision maker must still weigh the probative value of each piece of evidence and determine the weight of each piece in relationship to each other and the claim, and then reach a decision as to whether there is a balance of evidence for the claim and against the claim based on the weight given to each of that evidence.

Note: The resolution of the Reasonable Doubt doctrine can not be the basis for a Clear and Unmistakable Error (CUE). Since the Reasonable Doubt doctrine is based on Judgment made by a decision maker, it cannot be a basis for a CUE.

More

Veterans Self Help Guide

Back and Cervical Pain – Bulging Disc and the C and P Exam ROM Test

I have a C&P coming up in October for Neck/Back pains. While in Iraq in 2004, I fell off of a 916 semi-truck and have buddy statements to verify this. I also have medical proof that I went to the TMC in theater and it was considered a “sprain” and was given light duty for a few days. In my medical records from the field hospital in Iraq, it states that this the back injury is service connected. When I returned home in 2005, I went to the VA and had MRI’s done that confirmed I had a bulging disc going away from my spine. Since 2005, I have dealt with varying levels and range of motion and pain. My family doctor wrote a Stressor statement for me that he has been treating me for a Bulging Disc and believes that is it Service Connected. My Family Doctor is also a DR in the Army Reserves. My concern is that I have constant lower back pain due to the bulging disc, but if forced to try and ignore the pain, my ROM may appear to be better than it is, especially if PAIN is considered a much less gauge when testing for SC back problems.

I have read on many forums that ROM is the main test used to determine a SC rating, but if that range is done in PAIN, will they take that into consideration. I do not want to do anything that would seem shady or lying, I simply want what is owed to me for my service and the injuries I incurred while in theater. Should I state that I have constant lower back pain in varying levels of pain when testing my ROM? I’m concerned after reading many post that pain is not the primary assessment tool used but rather ROM. If your able to move your neck and back but am always in pain, what’s that say? Should I stop when the pain occurs? Rodney

I can only speak as a licensed massage therapist, but, I’ve witnessed ROM exams before. Usually common sense, which I know is not very common, should prevail. But you should inform anybody testing or touching you before they touch you about your injury and request that they DO NOT HURT YOU. Do this without drama, its a fairly reasonable request.

A good tester should ask when is the pain felt? and to what degree of pain?  Like you said, just be honest – don’t exaggerate, and do not understate your pain either. Usually they will try to find first pain range and take you to a reasonable limit – but it will be both of your jobs to keep communicating. You should not be brought to severe pain. So, yes, your pain indication is taken into account during ROM testing. But so is the credability of your response — the examiner will also evaluate if your embellishing or exaggerating. Just be honest. Real Simple.

Generally, there are 2 types of ROM tests. Passive: When they move your limbs and Active, where they test your own ability to move. Either way. Tell them when it hurts. No drama. Here is a great clip to see if your faking, they very well may do this on you.

Regarding your family doctor statements. He needs to use different language than just “believes” its service connected.

VA requires more than “belief.” Terms such as “more likely than not” and he should state the actual injury as the event. Use the dates of injury. Also, having disc bulges are not in and of itself a nexus as many people have bulges without pain. Back pain science is very much in disagreement. So the MRI in 2005 doesn’t prove the bulge was caused by your injury – only you have a disc bulge. And please, I do understand your situation. The best documentation for you will be to have a specialist, such as an Orthopedic Dr, state your current condition, your pain, your physical (and even mental) limitations and also state that you incurred the injury (just as you mentioned it) and he opines this injury  is “more likely than not” causing your disability.

Hell – he might write its definitely causing it. But not necessary. I’m sure the rest of the message board gives all the legal jargon pretty much the same. Mikey5311

The Power of 38 CFR 4.6

I mention here, from time to time, the power of 38 CFR 4.6. I am putting this in the main forum because I think Veterans Affairs makes more CUEs regarding this regulation, then we know. Source Berta Simmons VA Claims Forum

One of the first things vet reps should look for in a denial, is whether the VCAA letter was correct (if that letter is detrimental to the claimant, it will surely become a lengthy BVA case, remand due to VCAA violation, and back to BVA scenario ).

VCAA letters are different fopr survivors then for veterans…I made that point here in past posts and then whether the decision contains a CUE……do most vet reps really check those important points?

“Every element in any way affecting the probative value to be assigned to the evidence in each individual claim must be thoroughly and conscientiously studied by each member of the rating board in the light of the established policies of the Department of Veterans Affairs to the end that decisions will be equitable and just as contemplated by the requirements of the law. “ 38 CFR 4.6

A violation of this regulation can be a basis , within or out of the appellate period., for a valid CUE claim. I claimed CUE immediately under this regulation regarding my initial AO IHD decision and that CUE was fixed right away. The decision however contained another CUE which I have claim pending on.

I was going over my pending CUE based on this regulation, (38 CFR 4.6 ) I almost forgot I had cited a BVA decision that, because it is a legal decision and not medical, and explains what I mean.Also theBVA decision cited Veterans Affairs case law that I didn’t have to reiterate.”

In part:

“The veteran’s assertion of CUE is based on VA’s failure to consider highly relevant medical evidence, that is, the RO denied the existence of medical evidence that was clearly of record at the time of the rating decision. The Board is convinced that the RO committed error based on the record and the law that existed at the time the decision was made and had the error not been made, the outcome would have been manifestly different. Grover, supra.

This error is significantly more than a disagreement as to how the facts were weighed or evaluated. Crippen, supra.  Rather, it was a denial of the existence of facts of record.  Moreover, a persuasive reason has been given as to why the error manifestly changed the outcome. This reason is that had the error not been made, a compensable rating for irritable bowel syndrome would have made effective the day following separation from active military service, rather than the day that a Veterans Affairs outpatient treatment report noted irritable bowel syndrome. This review for CUE is based solely on the evidence of record at the time of the February 2000 rating decision. Russell, supra.

In conclusion, the veteran has shown that error occurred based on the record and the law that existed at the time the decision was made. After considering the evidence of record at the time of the June 1989 rating decision as well as the veteran’s later testimony concerning VA’s failure to observe that evidence, the Board finds that the veteran has demonstrated CUE in the February 2000 RO decision. An earlier effective date of October 29, 1989, for a 30 percent rating for irritable bowel syndrome must be granted.”

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for a 30 percent schedular rating for irritable bowel syndrome with gastroesophageal reflux are met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2002 & Supp. 2008); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10,
4.114, Diagnostic Code 7319 (2008).”

http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/view.jsp?FV=http://www.va.gov/vetapp08/Files5/0844495.txt

Evidence in the record at time of the alleged CUE decision, violation of basic Veterans Affairs case law, regarding evidence, in place at time of the past decision proof of a ratable condition at time of the alleged CUE decision, and a proven manifested and altered outcome…meaning more retro is due the vet (in this case back to the day after his discharge…..1989.

I am glad I found that I had used this decision in my pending claim because maybe it will help others to understand how I have been successful with both types of CUE claims.

But besides using this decision,in my claim, my evidence is relevant and probative and fits into the entire gamit of CUE regs, as above.

It is evidence that was in VA’s possession at time of alleged CUE decision, and ignored completely by the VA.

The manifested outcome, I stated to VA, is 100% P & T ,1151for 16 additional months, due the veteran, plus one spouse, one child.Plus SMC S for those 16 months.

This is also an example of why every surviving spouse should substitute themselves ASAP for any claims the veteran had pending at death.

And aggressively fight over any decisions that contain CUE to their detriment.

Tinnitus – it’s a brain malady…

Neuroscientists believe they have discovered your dysfunction. Or, more accurately, your neural mechanisms dysfunction. They “gate” noise controlling the noise and pain signals. You see. there are “circuit breakers” that should work, but are not.

After an injury tinnitus can occur and sufferers experience phantom sounds. Veterans are exposed to some very loud noises and there are times that ear protection is not practical, among veterans claimed disabilities tinnitus has been the top disability receiving compensation for at least the past 2 years. Compounding the problem of tinnitus and the pain it brings is an increased risk for depression and anxiety. Two disabilities that veterans are at risk for.

It’s a pretty interesting article, I hope you enjoy it.

In the October issue of Trends in Cognitive Sciences, researchers say identifying the problem is the first step to developing effective therapies for these disorders, which afflict millions of people. None now exist.

The scientists describe how the neural mechanisms that normally “gate” or control noise and pain signals can become dysfunctional, leading to a chronic perception of these sensations. Neuroscientists reveal the brain malady responsible for tinnitus, chronic pain

Further Reading

VA disability claims for noise-related hearing loss or tinnitus, there are certain things you’ll want to do to help your case:

  1. Provide detailed statements that explain the noise exposure you experienced during your military service.
  2. Cite the sources of the noise such as the machinery you used or the environment you worked in.
  3. Cite the duration of the exposure, and explain the type of hearing protection available for use (including no protection).

All related Tinnitus Information Click Here

Tinnitus – VA Disability Claims

Neuroscientists reveal the brain malady responsible for tinnitus, chronic pain

Neuroscientists at Georgetown University Medical Center and Germany’s Technische Universität München say they’ve uncovered the brain malady responsible for tinnitus and for chronic pain – the uncomfortable, sometimes agonizing sensations that persist long after an initial injury.

 

Recipients, Payments and Disabilities FY 2016

Read the Full Report here VBA Annual Benefits Report FY 2016

Trending VA Disability Claims Topics

The most common VA disabilities:

Totals – new recipients

Veterans who began receiving compensation benefits 284,550
Survivors who began receiving service-connected death benefits 28,891
Total: 313,441

Estimated annual amounts paid – new recipients

Benefit program Number of recipients Estimated average individual amount paid annually Estimated total amount paid annually
Compensation 284,550 $11,661 $3.32 Billion
Service-Connected Death1 28,891 $16,016 $462.7 Million
Total: 313,441 $12,063 $3.78 Billion

Most prevalent service-connected (SC) disabilities of new compensation recipients

(Note: Total disabilities are not the total number of veterans, as one veteran may have multiple disabilities)

Tinnitus 149,429
Hearing loss 77,622
Limitation of flexion, knee 72,270
Lumbosacral or cervical strain 71,653
Scars, general 58,134
Post-traumatic stress disorder 53,983
Limitation of motion of the ankle 48,601
Migraine 42,400
Impairment of the knee, general 36,490
Paralysis of the sciatic nerve 34,505
Total number of most prevalent disabilities

Total number of disabilities2

 645,087

1,495,373

Average number of SC disabilities per new compensation recipient

New Recipients: 284,550 Total number of disabilities: 1,495,373
Average SC disabilities per Veteran: 5.26