Either I’m becoming jaded or the BVA is getting soft on the Kentucky Vets with HCV. This is about the fourth one where the Vet must have had a CMOH to get this kind of consideration.

Vets by now are more than familiar with the litany of phrases employed by vA to deny. When was the last time ( or any time) you heard a judge chime in with:

The Board sent the Veteran’s claims file for a medical expert opinion in January 2012. A February 2012 medical opinion from Dr. C.M. indicated that he believed it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s hepatitis C was related to service. His rationale was that the Veteran was in direct contact with blood and body parts in Vietnam, without gloves, and he may have had scratches or cuts on his body. He was also treated for a sexually transmitted disease during service. The Veteran was also noted to have been treated for a burned and infected finger in 1964. Although the Veteran received a tattoo following separation from service, it was presumed to have been done under sterile conditions. Dr. C.M. noted no other risk factors for acquisition of hepatitis C.

vA never presumes anything other than your guilt. This fellow is getting the most favorable consideration anyone has this year but he’s not the first. Either the judges realize we’re becoming an extinct species or they are getting new signals from on high. Absent a blatant drug history, more and more of us seem to be getting SC for this. Unlike others, I look a gift horse in the mouth.