This is unarguably one of the worst examples of a VET getting the bum’s rush out the door. The Veterans Administration should be proud of itself for saving the taxpayer’s hard-earned dollars. I see no offer of a liver biopsy to ascertain the age of the infection. Granted, the VET has no nexus letters. What do the VFW VSOs in Nashville do to earn their $ ? The closest the BVA came to giving this VET his day in court was the admission that he had hep in service and it wasn’t definitively diagnosed as A or B. A good nexus at this point would have put the $ in his pocket. Instead, The VET chose to let the VA make medical conclusions about where and when this hep occurred. 28 years after service his health started to decline and he discovered it. Does that sound familiar to any of you ? Why does the VA get away with using this as a reason to deny benefits ? The VFW should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. Blame should be placed at the door of the guilty. The VET came to the VSO for help because they understand the process, or claimed to. We can’t blame the VA. They are trained to do this like a pit bull. A VET’s legal options are severely limited in a claim for benefits ,no matter what you are told otherwise. VA, like a lazy cop, seized on the easiest evidence it could locate to solve the crime- a history of drug abuse. Nowhere in this decision was there any serious discussion of risk factors in service . A nurse practitioner gave a limp assessment without benefit of any SMRs or other records that might shine some light on the case. The VA sensed the weakness in this Dx and attacked accordingly. They went out and got an opinion that supported their decision to deny benefits and ruled that they have a right to chose one medical opinion over another. In legal terms, this is called an “outcome -based” decision. The VA decided the VET was not entitled to SC for his hepatitis and proceeded to gather the evidence needed to deny him benefits. When you file your claim for any disease or injury, please look in the mirror. This is the person the VA will be addressing. You want to deal from a position of strength. You need evidence to balance or refute their evidence. What you submit as evidence must be better than what they have in their records. They will not expend a lot of energy trying to deny a well-prepared and presented claim. That is why some VETS are successful in spite of evidence which is prejudicial to their claim. 85% of us are unsuccessful. This decision is just another sad example of why. Think Boy Scout.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp06/Files5/0636372.txt