BVA– STDS = 98% WILLFUL MISCONDUCT

This is pathetic. When they did it to WGM down in Houston, I thought of it as an aberration-stupid but otherwise just a bad hair day for the rater. What we all forget is that the big cheese DRO had to sign off on this, too. Now you have two idiots out walking around. We call that IOWA. They actually incorporated it into a State name. I’m sure you were wondering about that. But this happened in St. Paul, not St. Pete or Houston. Is it an idiot virus infecting the M-21? Who knows. vA calls it new age rating with 98% accuracy. Now if they’d just take it up a notch to 125 days, we’d really be cooking with gas. Look Ma! No backlog!

 The examiner also provided a “Medical opinion summary” in which she stated that the Veteran’s hepatitis C was less likely than not caused by or a result of his military service. Her explanation was “contact with prostitute(s) while in service in VietNam is his greatest known risk factor fo (sic) hepatitis C. This would constitute willful misconduct and therefore his hepatitis is less than 50/50 probability due to mil. service.”

Whoa! Is that a typo or a slight against Ebonics? Adobe Acrobat abandoned this woman. The last sentence is grammatically incorrect.  Now, keep that thought and bear with me. If he got it from a prostitute(s) that he freely admitted he had sexual congress with unprotected, then it is service connected. This rater is both verbally and mentally challenged.  She wants to say it’s due to willful misconduct in the military but because it’s willful, it is not payable. She inadvertently hamburgered her phraseology and ended up with the above. VLJ Milo Hawley politely steers her back in the right direction but, just like WGM, the die is cast. Its service connection for the St. Pauli girl guy. And contrary to what the M-21s in Houston and St. Paul say, it isn’t willful misconduct. Stupid, perhaps, but not willful. There’s a big financial difference as St. Pauli guy is about to find out. But wait. When Milo speaks, the Minneapolis RO listens:

The Board finds this medical opinion to be evidence favorable to a grant of service connection for hepatitis C. The examiner stated that the most likely cause of the Veteran’s hepatitis C was sex with prostitute(s). Indeed, this is one of the risk factors listed on the questionnaire sent to the Veteran by VA and it is the only risk factor acknowledged by the Veteran in that questionnaire. The examiner’s statement that his hepatitis C was not caused or the result of his military service is not an expert medical opinion because her rationale for that conclusion was her own legal determination that his sexual activity with prostitute(s) was misconduct. As this is not a medical reason for the unfavorable conclusion, that part of her opinion is without any probative value. What is clear from her medical opinion is that the most likely cause of his hepatitis C is his sexual activity with a prostitute during service.

The first question that runs through your mind is “Is this what fluoride does to your brain?”  A close second would be “This is the bubblehead doing my rating?” Gad Zooks. It becomes a scream when you think the GS-14 (DRO) supervising her was part and parcel of this idiot’s delight. Rest assured that no one will be reprimanded for this. Bonus payments will continue apace. Janitors will be promoted to raters and mental competence,  as we know it in the  Minneapolis-St. Paul  RO will  continue to be a rare commodity.

And poor old WGM thought he’d go down in history as one unique guy with the luck of the Viet Cong.

Posted in BvA HCV decisions, Vietnam Disease Issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

BVA–ASKNOD GOES TO DC AND LOSES!

Yep. Here I am. I thought I hit this one out of the park.  What was I thinking? Apparently they do not allow new evidence to be submitted during the appeal. If they do then they owe me some serious go  to town, walking about money. Bucks Boulevard. Dollar Drive. Some think I’m doing it for the money. I say I’m doing it because they called me a liar and told me to piss off. Either way, I would have appealed it. I can hear Senator Jim Byrd of West Virginia, his jowls quivering, shouting his trademark “It’s wrong. Wrong! WRONG!”

If you weren’t aware, and perhaps the new kids at vA didn’t notice, they put a date stamp on everything. Twenty years ago they put it on the back of documents. Now they stamp the front and scribble all manner of notes on them. Check this out. That pretty much says “Yes sir, Mr. Nod. We got your NOD and the new and material stuff. We’ll get back to you.”

NOD’s RBA pg 3387

If they had examined my NOD more closely, they might have noticed I submitted some stuff called “new and material evidence”. When you do that, it comes under the heading of 38 CFR §3.156(b) and a new decision must occur. They did it right in my tinnitus claim and awarded it back to 1994. They simply cannot bring themselves to take pen in hand and start writing 60% back to 1994 and TDIU to 1989. I don’t blame them. What am I saying? Of course I do.

Here is the CUE I argued with it. That makes me 2/7 at the BVA- not an enviable record. That’s why I’ve called in the Rainmaker from Michigan. I think his motto is “If you want to win, hire the very best”. This one is going to earn him his shekels. VA made some dumb errors and then declined to discuss them in this decision. If they were to vacate and remand, that lets me introduce all those lovely new records Air America and her boss were finally so kind to share with me. If they just reverse, I’d be very happy. Anything other than affirmation is also Dollar Drive.

 

Posted in ASKNOD BOOK, BvA Decisions, CUE | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

BVA– SERVICE CONNECTION FOR INTERFERON INJURIES

Here’s a handy one to have in your notebook. For all of you who got clobbered by bug juice, here’s the definitive “How I did it” from Don Diego of San Diego. The Don has had a slight loss of quality of life following his “cure”. vA has munificently agreed to give him 40% for puréed brain syndrome. They agreed to some ,but not other, things.  Far be it from me to spoil a predictable vA decision.

Since the effective date of service connection, hepatitis B has been asymptomatic.

For the period from June 28, 2006, through April 30, 2007, the Veteran was undergoing interferon therapy for hepatitis C which resulted in medically established side effects causing symptoms comparable to daily fatigue, malaise, and anorexia, with minor weight loss and hepatomegaly.

Now, to make this work and put all the cars on the right ferry boat. they have to back out of DC 7345 (Hepatitis B) and motor on over to DC 7354 (Hepatitis C). This is to keep the accountants happy. We wouldn’t want to allot any funds to the wrong category like Karaoke machines or helicopter rides.

Since the effective date of service connection, the criteria for a compensable evaluation for hepatitis B are not met, but the diagnostic code is changed.

For the period from June 28, 2006, through April 30, 2007, only, the criteria for a compensable evaluation of 40 percent are met, and the diagnostic code is changed.

The Don was dx’d  and rated with HBV but now they are “fixing it” and calling it what it is-HCV. The bug juice fried him so he gets bus money and a free CATV/cell phone/ hi-speed internet bundle with some chump change left over. I’m sure he’d rather have his health back but we can’t always get what we want.

Posted in HCV Health, Interferon claims, Medical News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

STOP LOSS PAYMENT DEADLINE

Randy sent this over and he’s very right. VA (and the military) doesn’t publish deadlines anywhere newsy like my paper so this helps here:

Good information for new site visitors, nes pas?
Veterans,
I thought you might be interested in this information on the Retroactive Stop Loss Special Pay.  Any service member who was stop-lossed between 9/11/2001 and 9/30/2009, is eligible for this benefit, but the deadline to submit the paperwork is rapidly approaching.  Please help spread the word to all veterans so that no eligible Coloradan is left out.

U.S. SENATOR MARK UDALL
Armed Services, Energy and Natural Resources, Intelligence and Aging Committees
October 5, 2012

Udall Encourages Eligible Veterans to File a Claim for Stop-Loss Payments

Mark Udall urged military service members and veterans who had their military service involuntarily extended between Sept. 11, 2001 and Sept. 30, 2009 to file a claim for Retroactive Stop Loss Special Pay before the program’s application deadline of Oct. 21. The payment, authorized by the 2009 War Supplemental Appropriations Act, provides eligible service members, veterans or their beneficiaries with a $500 payment for each month or partial month served in stop-loss status.

The retroactive stop-loss pay program, supported by Sen. Udall, was established by Congress to provide additional compensation to service members whose military service obligations were involuntarily extended due to increased operational tempo and mission loads following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Eligible members should visit their specific service’s website for instructions about how to apply online or by mail. Details about the retroactive stop-loss special pay program can be found at http://www.defense.gov/stoploss.

# # #
Bryan VanDriel | Constituent Services Advocate | U.S. Senator Mark E. Udall |  (970) 356-5586 | bryan_vandriel@markudall.senate.gov
Posted in All about Veterans, vA news | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

vA WATER COOLERS AT ORLANDO HR CONFERENCE

This just in from an AFGE union member and photographer who works for the Central Office. He wishes to remain anonymous but forwarded this picture he took of the water cooler in the atrium where they were holding their cheese tasting:

 

Rumor has it their Patton look-alike was spending waaaay too much time in close proximity to this device.

Posted in Humor | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

BVA–C&P MUST BE SIGNED BY A MD

FROM THE FAMOUS BUGTUSSLE,

WEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL OFFICE

We have seen much and heard even more about Vets who come to us with reports of vA substituting an ARNP, PA or DBC (designated bedpan changer) as the “physician” of choice for their C&P. Paul, husband of Leigh, tells us of this bait and switch. 

Well, here’s the latest definitive law on it and it explains how vA is cranking out ARPN-generated examiner’s reports. What isn’t explained to us (or Paul) is where the signature of the doctor is on the form. Vets had better start requesting this and a summary of a doctor’s specialty. This should be done as rapidly after a C&P is done, too. This might have to be couched in an FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) format. Vets may soon discover podiatrists doing DM2 diagnoses or Registered Nurses opining on the cause of HCV. Just because a doctor signs it doesn’t mean he had anything to do with it. Unless he is directly supervising the ARNP or whoever in the same building and is not 200 miles away in BFE, the C&P is worthless. Direct supervision is what was envisioned in medical circles such as this. Here’s the M-21 language:

In its May 2010 remand, the Board instructed the RO (in pertinent part) to arrange for the Veteran to be examined by a physician with the appropriate expertise to determine the etiology of the Veteran’s fibromyalgia, to include whether her fibromyalgia is etiologically related to her service or was caused or permanently worsened by service-connected disability. The Veteran was provided with a VA examination in November 2011 conducted by a nurse practitioner, who did not provide all the requested opinions. (She only opined that the Veteran’s fibromyalgia is not caused by or a result of her service-connected disabilities.) Moreover, a physician did not review or sign the examination report. According to M21-1MR, Part III, Subpart IV, Chapter 3, Section D 18(a), an examination report must be reviewed and signed by a medical doctor when an examination has been conducted by a physician assistant or nurse practitioner.

Now you know. It’s like peeking behind the curtain and seeing the “Wizard” pulling the levers. You cannot complain when you do not know the rules of this crazy game. My hope is to remove the curtains one at a time until there is no mystery.  Today Bugtussle. Tomorrow the rest of the ROs.

Posted in Tips and Tricks, Veterans Law | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

BVA–JETGUN DECLARED THE SMOKING GUN IN ROANOKE, VA. CASE

Well, 2012 may just be a banner year for jetguns wins, Ladies and Gentlemen Vets. Read here where the Vet, repped by the venerable American Red Cross, wins big in the benefit of the doubt. He has NO risks other than the gun. The vA has inadvertently  given him his win because the vA examiner failed to find some niggling inconsistency they could use to collapse his house of cards.  If this keeps up, there really won’t be any need for this website. Unfortunately, this is only #3 in the first 100 I’ve read of the 2012 decisions. That’s hardly a trend. Patricia probably knows this guy and helped him.

Posted in BvA HCV decisions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

BVA– JETGUN WIN WITH NO NEXUS

This one is clean as a whistle. The Veterans Law Judge threw out the biased VA examiner’s  tripe about how it was due to a life of drug abuse after service as being “picky”. This one defies logic. I’ve never seen anything like it. All I can surmise is the guy was related by birth or marriage to the Judge. Either that or a large sum of money traded hands in the parking garage under 810 Vermin Ave. NW.  Come on. The guy was pro se and didn’t even have a VSO to screw it up. No nexus, no nothing. Any other ideas?

Posted in Jetgun BvA Decisions | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

IRIS Email response: We need more Veterans working at the VA

The VA loves to tout how they “hire Veterans”.  I wonder if the manager of IRIS, below is a Vet:

Discussion Thread
 Response via Email Via Email (Department of Veterans Affairs) (Date) 11:38 AM
Dear Mr.Joe Average Vet:This is in response to your inquiry to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) dated xxxx 2012.We apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry. We are currently experiencing a large volume of inquiries and are working as quickly as possible to respond to each in a timely manner.You indicated on your inquiry that you were the Veteran, however, the contents of the inquiry was written in the third person. Please clarify who you are if you are not the Veteran. We appreciate your understanding of our security measures, as they are essential to ensure the integrity of your information. Once we receive this information we will then conduct the necessary research and respond to your concerns accordingly.

Thank you for contacting us. If you have questions or need additional help with the information in our reply, please respond to this message or see our other contact information below.

Sincerely yours,

Donovan W. Thompson
National IRIS Response Center Manager
tlj

I would humbly suggest that neither Mr. Thompson nor “TLJ” are a Veteran.  Why not?  Well, most Veterans (especially Marines) know that, especially in boot camp, you are not allowed to use “I” or other pronouns.  You refer to yourself as “the private”.   In a similar manner, the VA apparently did not “get it” when I referred to myself as “the Veteran”, that is, “in the third person”.    

We need more Veterans in the VA.  It does not make sense that some Vet’s are making do with their “VA Homeless Kitchenettes” while VA executives are awarding themselves big bonuses.    To see how much your friendly VA executive got as a bonus, click on the pdf link.

2010_Bonuses001

Posted in Complaints Department, Guest authors, VA BACKLOG | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Absence of Evidence is not Negative Evidence

Yes, I know that one is a mouthful.  However, how many times have we read where the Veteran was denied because “the record shows no evidence of treatment” for this malady?

This is precisely what the vA is doing.  They are saying because we can’t find it in the records, it did not happen.   It isn’t necessarily true. or the reverse… because it’s absent, it proves you are not telling the truth. That is negative evidence that says they cannot trust your lay testimony.

I will propose that “documentation in the SMR’s” is independent of whether or not we actually have a disease or injury in service.  Why?  There are numerous reasons why it is that there is nothing in your medical record suggesting treatment for the malady, but you do, in fact, still have a disease or injury inflicted in service.  Here are some of the possible reasons:

1.  The evidence was lost. (Most frequent mistake)

2.  The Veteran was treated for the condition in service, but there was no record to begin with.  Maybe the medic who treated you thought it was more important to treat the next guy, than to fill out a medical record, that would be difficult or impossible to keep in this battle anyway.   Maybe the medic was just too scared of those bullets flying overhead,  or could not find his pen.    Or, maybe the doctor was lazy, and did not write it down.

3.  Perhaps the Veteran was treated for his malady “outside of normal channels”.  Maybe he had to get treatment from a private hospital, instead of the military one.  For example, I was personally treated at a private hospital because the local VAMC was “full” and not accepting new patients, and it was an emergency.   This is not against the law.    This hospital could be closed, could have burned down, etc, and the records were not recovered.  Or, the hospital may charge a fee for the records and the VA refuses to pay.

Now, lets consider when the SMR’s have “negative evidence” as opposed to just nothing there.  You go to the doc and tell him you think you broke your leg, or at least sprained it.  He does an Xray, and an MRI.  He writes in your record, “There was no evidence of a fracture or even a sprain” in the Xrays.   Now THIS is negative evidence, and the Board can deny based on this negative evidence.    This is a legitimate denial where the Veteran will need to overcome this negative evidence. It does, however, qualify under Wilson v. Derwinski though. The mere mention of treatment or the reporting of symptoms is proof of  injury.

But, I digress.  Back to the guy who got treated, as in one of the above scenarios  but there is nothing in the record.   Remember these numbers.  They have been known to “sign retro checks”.    They are your friend.   Are you ready for them?   Here they are:  38 CFR § 3.156 (c).

3.156 (c) was written to protect Veterans against vA’s (and the military’s) bad filing habits. If you were denied in 1994 and just now found old records, they can be used to revisit the 1994 denial.  If they are instrumental in proving your case, you win.  You found those old service records, and there is, in fact, documentation of this malady.   But it further says that you get your retro check, BUT, ONLY if you tell them about 3.156(c).   Why?  Because, most of the time the VA won’t tell you about this.  They will just award you with a bad effective date, hoping you won’t remember these numbers and explain them to the judge. Worse, you have to mention this during the course of the claim and before the BVA decision is final.

3.156(C) can beat “absence of evidence”.   But 3.156 (c) won’t beat “negative evidence”.    To beat that negative,  you need an IMO or IME from your doctor, not vA’s.

You may have to read this again.  Your retro may just depend on understanding this.  The VA hopes you won’t.

Does anyone have a pen?  I need to document this injury.

Posted in Guest authors, Veterans Law | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments