BVA– SUGARDADDY?


Here’s another one of those Nashville Cats who won. I couldn’t believe this. It’s enough to make you want to move to Nashville and file there. I had to look and see which VLJ had written a perfectly phrased Benefit of the Doubt argument that came down on the Vet’s side. This just doesn’t happen. Apparently, Acting Veterans Law Judge Tara L. Reynolds hasn’t gotten the briefing on how this works. In time, with plenty of good coaching, she’ll see the light and get with the program. Until then, I hope every one of you who has to go up on appeal gets this fine lady for a judge.

Listen to this prose. It’s like milk and honey without a tuba blaring at the end.

In order to resolve if his hepatitis C is related to service, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in September 2009. Such an assessment is complex in nature and required a professional medical opinion. The VA examiner reviewed the claims file and the Veteran’s risk factors. His drug use (during service), tattoos (after service), sexual history (during service), and claimed exposure to blood (during service) were considered. The examiner stated that combat activity producing minor abrasions in the presence of a blood environment increases the Veteran’s chances of exposure (to hepatitis C). In addition, other factors, such as an unprotected sexual encounter, intranasal cocaine use, and tattoos can each serve as factors in transition. The examiner stated that the military combat exercise and the other aforementioned potential causes of exposure increase a probability of exposure. 

The Board notes that the VA examiner basically included all reported risk factors as causes of the Veteran’s hepatitis C. Since the examiner did not indicate that one cause was the sole etiology of the Veteran’s diagnosis, the Board must accept that they all played a role. In addition, the Veteran must be afforded the benefit of the doubt. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Accordingly, service connection for hepatitis C is warranted. 

In my mind, a military “combat exercise” is not combat with its attendant exposure to blood. This judge is cognizant of all the facts and carefully avoids stepping over the Colvin ditch and making a decision medical in nature. The VA examiner(Rater +Coach) signed off on their version of all the possible etiologies but left the conclusion column blank. Yes. You read that right. They listed all the risks without quantifying them and then stated equivocally that any one of them (or all of them) might be responsible. What’s going on here? Is this guy some Senator’s son? Who does he know that will get him a bye from this Judge?

Most VLJs would remand the thing for an explanation instead of an RO shrug of the shoulders. There is no nexus, or to be more exact, there are four with no rationale. I notice she wasn’t as forgiving on the other claims when she denied them. With the large number of risks and some after service (tattoos), the VA examiner is somehow avoiding what normally involves 3 trees worth of paper- a long winded explanation of why the drug usage in service cannot be remunerated due to willful misconduct. Miraculously there is no discussion of it and cites to § 3.301. Now why is that? If you hold this decision up to the light there is so much right with it that it stinks. VA doesn’t operate like this. Neither does the BVA.

There’s more afoot here but I don’t have the C-file to figure it out. It’s one of the few times I’ve been stumped when reading a decision. Veterans occasionally get a screw up like this. Let’s call it an aberration rather than a mistake. I’m glad Johnny Nashville won. I wish we all could or that we at least get a fair shake. It so rare to see the BVA playing fair that it takes your breath away and you have to look for some ulterior motive. I say either the Vet is the VLJ’s sugar daddy boyfriend or he’s her father. Anyone have a better idea?

http://www.va.gov/vetapp/wraper_bva.asp?file=/vetapp11/Files5/1146730.txt

About asknod

VA claims blogger
This entry was posted in BvA HCV decisions, Nexus Information and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to BVA– SUGARDADDY?

  1. Kiedove says:

    The Fast Letter was written in 2004! It’s an insult to the judges and veterans to drag out that out-dated information. Judges read. They know that blood-borne pathogens are transmitted in many ways, Are they waiting for Congress to rule HCV a presumptive service connection? Is that how it works? Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) has been fighting HCV for years. Maybe he can help. He knows how hard fighting this infection is. He’s testified on his condition (C-SPAN). He has no idea how he got it.
    During the VA claims process. the subterfuge is being uncovered one vet/widow/widower at a time–when they lose and when they win.
    Question: Are too many minor illnesses included in claims? Would claims be better received if they focused on life-threatening illnesses, those that impair the ability to work in ones previous capacity, or that impair communication significantly? .

    • asknod says:

      Funny you should pose that question. While perusing another Veterans’ site I found this: “Thanks ya’ll for the info. Pfb is the $5.00 word for shaving bumps. I been checkin lately and I know the va math weird (sic). I’m pending increase for both knees, right shoulder. New are hemorrhoids, plantar fasciitis in both feet, both hips currently rated 0%, TMJ, tinea capitas, bilateral tinea pedis, Avascular necurosis left hip/ secondary to crohn’s disease, (diagnose on active duty) ptsd. I think I got it all. Anyone think I got a good chance of gettin 100%? Just curious. my initial claim was xx/xx/xxxx.

      It appears there are some who are using the system as a supplement to SSI. I personally feel that any Vet who has a disease /injury should be remunerated. With that said, I also have some very strong personal feelings about how Vets w/ HCV are virtually precluded from any meaningful access to this. Cryptogenic disease processes are inherently unfair and virtually impossible to win in the VA’s ex parte system. Presumptive with a few codicils would be nice. As for Vets who string together a pearl necklace of 10%ers, it will take 22 of them to get to 100% and that is not a 100% schedular rating-just an amalgam of 22 disparate illnesses/diseases. Be careful what you are pursuing. As for the Vet above, it’s fairly obvious he’s been camped out on Vets’ websites too long.
      Here’s another one:
      As a suggestion, you need a lot of bilateral percentages that can be added up and combined with something else. To give you an idea, I am 20% left knee, 20 right knee 10 left ankle, 10 right ankle, 10 on each foot, 20 on each shoulder, 20 on each elbow, 10 on each wrist, 10 on each hip, 10 on each hand, 20 on back and 60 for Psoriasis.

      Vets helping Vets. That’s what its all about…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.