

-
Join 563 other subscribers
Bloggers
-
asknod
Bethanie Spangenberg
-
kcraveiro
-
robinhoodesqvetsatty
-
Wesley McCauley
-
-
Recent Posts
Archives
- October 2026
- September 2026
- August 2026
- July 2026
- June 2026
- May 2026
- April 2026
- March 2026
- February 2026
- January 2026
- December 2025
- November 2025
- October 2025
- September 2025
- August 2025
- July 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
Blogs by Subject
- 100% ratings (16)
- 1151 claims (9)
- 1154(b) combat presumptions (19)
- 2013 Hugfest Magnet Indiana (15)
- 2015 Hugfest Gig Harbor Wash (5)
- 3.156(c) (23)
- 38 CFR § 3.156(b) (6)
- 4th of July (13)
- Agent Orange (78)
- Aid and Attendance (62)
- All about Veterans (527)
- AMC or ARC (5)
- AO (113)
- Appeals Modernization Act (53)
- Approved Veterans Charities (2)
- Army Medical Manual (3)
- Artificial Intelligence in claims (3)
- ASKNOD BOOK (56)
- §3.156(c) claims (4)
- Barry Bumps in SMC (14)
- Blood info (14)
- Blue Water Navy (15)
- BvA and VARO CUE DECISIONS (10)
- BvA Decisions (176)
- BvA HCV decisions (367)
- BVA Hearings (10)
- BVA Purplebook (6)
- BVA records tampering (3)
- BVA Referrals (4)
- BVA VLJ RECUSALS (1)
- C&P exams (45)
- C-Files and RBAs (17)
- CAFC Rulings (10)
- Camp Lejeune poisoning (25)
- CAvC HCV Ruling (55)
- CAVC Knowledge (123)
- CAVC ruling (93)
- CAVC/COVA Decision (46)
- Claims sharks (5)
- CLE -Continuing Legal Education (1)
- Combat Presumption (4)
- Community Care Network (3)
- Complaints Department (156)
- Congressional HCV info (8)
- Congressional Influence (20)
- Continuing Legal Education (CLEs) (1)
- Corona pandemic (22)
- Corona virus (19)
- CUE (74)
- DBQs (2)
- De Novo Review (2)
- Dependency allowance (2)
- Diagnostic Codes (DCs) (4)
- DIC (13)
- DM II (21)
- DRO and BVA Hearings (21)
- Duty to Assist (24)
- EAJA (7)
- Earlier Effective dates (42)
- Electronic Filing of Evidence (8)
- Equitable Estoppel (4)
- Equitable tolling (15)
- Exposed Veteran Radio Show (41)
- Extraordinary Writs of Mandamus (66)
- Extraschedular consideration (1)
- FACE HUMOR (78)
- Fed. Cir. & Supreme Ct. (53)
- Fiduciary (1)
- Food for the soul (179)
- Food for thought (187)
- Frivolous Filings (45)
- From the footlocker (79)
- Future Veterans (73)
- General Messages (448)
- Guest authors (443)
- Gulf War Issues (86)
- Guns (1)
- HBV (6)
- HCV Epidemiology (27)
- HCV Health (308)
- HCV Risks (documented) (186)
- hepatitis (22)
- hepatitis A (HAV) (2)
- Higher Level of Review (HLR) (12)
- HISA Grants (2)
- History (14)
- HOMELESS VETERANS (27)
- How to Qualify for VA SMC (20)
- Humor (558)
- IMOs/IMEs (40)
- Implicit denial (8)
- Important CAVC/COVA Ruling (114)
- Independent Living Program (131)
- Independent Medical Opinions (24)
- Inferred claims (14)
- Informal Claims (20)
- Inspirational Veterans (115)
- Interferon claims (17)
- Introduction-Read these first (34)
- Jetgun BvA Decisions (111)
- Jetgun Claims evidence (100)
- Jetgun Manual (10)
- KP Veterans (321)
- Labor Day (2)
- Lawyering Up (61)
- Lay testimony (13)
- Legacy Claims (9)
- Legislation (9)
- LOD and willful misconduct (9)
- Loss of Use (1)
- LZ Cork (12)
- M-21 info (13)
- medical injections (23)
- Medical News (291)
- Medicare for VETS (13)
- Memorial Day (20)
- Milestones (45)
- Military Madness (22)
- MST (14)
- NEW BOOK (15)
- New disability calculator widget (1)
- Nexus Information (192)
- non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (1)
- non-va care (26)
- NPRC 1973 Fire (6)
- Obtaining a C-file (6)
- OIG Entertainment (7)
- OSA (3)
- PACT ACT (5)
- PCAFC (3)
- Pickles (13)
- polls (19)
- Porphyria Cutanea Tarda (25)
- Presumption of Regularity (36)
- Presumption of Soundness (7)
- Proof of Mailing (8)
- PTSD (138)
- Public Service Announcements (7)
- R1/R2 (26)
- Reductions in rating (13)
- Remanded claims (16)
- research (64)
- SC For Cause of Death (7)
- Service dogs (2)
- SHREDDERGATE (13)
- SMC (99)
- SMC Bedridden (2)
- SMC School (4)
- SMC T (2)
- SOCs and SSOCs (10)
- Sofosbuvir (33)
- Space Force (1)
- Special Monthly Compensation (40)
- Stardust Radio (18)
- Stolen Valor (12)
- suicide (2)
- TBI (30)
- TDIU (25)
- Thailand AO presumptive path (14)
- Thanksgiving and war (8)
- The Vietnam Wall (5)
- Tips and Tricks (522)
- transfusions and hepatitis (7)
- Tunnel to Towers (1)
- Uncategorized (349)
- Urgent Care Benefit (2)
- VA Agents (366)
- VA AMA appeals knowledge (13)
- VA Attorneys (116)
- VA BACKLOG (166)
- VA Bonuses (14)
- VA Caregivers Act (3)
- VA Claims Sharks (4)
- VA Conspiracies (27)
- VA FTCA Claims (3)
- VA Health Care (132)
- VA Medical Mysteries Explained (152)
- VA Motions for Reconsideration (9)
- vA news (423)
- VA RAMP (7)
- VA Representative Training (5)
- VA Secretaries (23)
- VA security Breaches (6)
- VA special monthly compensation (26)
- VA statistics (35)
- VA suspense dates (10)
- VA TBI (12)
- VA+ Social Security (2)
- VAMC Scheduling Coverup (54)
- VAOIG Watchdogs (43)
- vARO Decisions (72)
- VARO Misfeasance (26)
- VBMS (25)
- VBMS Tricks (109)
- Veterans arts (1)
- Veterans Charity concerns (10)
- Veterans Choice card (12)
- Veterans Day (27)
- Veterans Law (529)
- Vets Claims Advisory Group (VCAG) (1)
- Viet Nam Wall (1)
- Vietnam Disease Issues (180)
- Vietnam War history (174)
- VR&E (63)
- VSOs (56)
- Waiver of Review in the First Instance (5)
- Women Vets (10)
Meta
FED. CIR–HAMER V. SHINSEKI (he’s baaack!)
It’s always interesting to follow the progress (or nonprogress) of a claim as it wends its way up the legal ladder. As the BVA is rather secretive and does not divulge the name, rank, airspeed and tail number of the Vet, we only pick up on these as they go by at the Court. I happened to spot Mr. Hamer back in the news again today. Apparently the gentleman, still under the expert tutelage of Mr. Kenneth Carpenter, has opted to take it up a notch and pursue his argument before a panel of the Federal Circuit.
This should be interesting. I posted a writeup of Mr. Hamer’s excellent adventures in claims back in October, 2010 and his subsequent mishap when the BVA inadvertently granted the very thing he wished- a CUE of his 1985 rating.
http://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/Hamer_07-3181_published_opinion_July_27.pdf
When they did this, it freed them up to use what we call the Fenderson or staged rating technique wherein you are rated retroactively based on the available medical and work history info the VA has access to. Technically they are not allowed to hire private dicks and put surveillance on your home. Hell, they don’t have to. They have their own jack-booted thugs at their beck and call. Of course, if you’re on TDIU and working, that’s a different story altogether. That’s cheating. One is the antithesis of the other. One simply cannot be “Totally Disabled Due to Individual Unemployability” if he is working. Or can he? There’s one small wrinkle here. The VA’s actions caused him to seek work to eat. He obtained what can best be described as “sheltered employment” as a Service officer of a VSO. This was still no excuse as we saw at the Court.
When Mr. Hamer won his CUE claim they Fendersoned his ass and scalped him of his TDIU during that period he was working (1989 to 2000) and then re-TDIU’d him. Apparently this rating technique did not sit well with the gentleman. Yesterday he and his esteemed mouthpiece went to the Fed. Cir. and pleaded his case before them.
You can listen to the hearing (audio only) by visiting :
http://veteranslawlibrary.com/files/Fed_Cir_Audio/2011/Hamer_2011-7033.mp3
Mr. Carpenter has cogently and ably made his case and it isn’t all that tortured or convoluted. He simply points out that a CUE claim is clearly defined as a restoration of one’s existing claim rather than a new, initial award that can then be Federsonated. Always remember, Fenderson was constructed to aid in determining a fluid rating predicated over time (retroactively) on an original claim. Think of it like this: You win after 10 years of VA intransigence. They give you 10%. No way, you say. I qualified for 60% on such and such a date 5 years ago and 30% 7 years back. They split it and give you 10% to begin with 10 years back, up it to 20% @ 7 years, 40% @ 8 and 60% now. “Now” was 2 years ago so you file another NOD and say Hold the phone. Now its 100% in 2010. And on and on the dance goes. But- and its an important but, Fenderson only applies to new claims, not the restoration of an old, protected rating based on CUE. You can never use Fenderson on a claim for increase and go retroactive either. Mr. Carpenter aptly points out the incongruity of bending Fenderson around like a pretzel and inserting it into 38 CFR § 3.105(a) and (e) to the judges. He’s a silver tongued devil, that man. If I am ever forced to venture into the hallowed halls of the Court or the Fed. Circuit, I hope he’s by my side. I have no qualms about sharing my take with him.
Mr. Hamer got his severance package in 1985- fully 7 years after his grant of SC. As such, it was a stabilized rating which, absent a medical finding and proper severance notice, could not be disturbed. He argued in 2000 for a finding of CUE in the 1985 severance and several months later for an increase back to TDIU immediately. His RO gave him back the IU but declined the CUE revision. He won that in 2004 at the BVA, but got saddled with the Fenderson criteria. Based on that he got the lollipop stick sans lollipop from 89 to 2000.
The Court didn’t see eye to eye with Mr. Carpenter’s arguments and found nothing wrong with this business. They utilized existing jurisprudence in Reizenstein and O’Connell to rationalize their decision. This is all well and fine if, and it’s a big if here, O’Connell and Reizenstein are truly on point and good jurisprudence.
Mr. Carpenter reaches back to SEC v. Chenery Corp. 332 U.S. 194 (1947). The SEC did what the Board did. They invented a rule to fix an inequity during the course of the adjudication. The BVA got the appeal and re-adjudicated it based on a VAOPGCPREC designed and promulgated solely to deal with Mr. Hamer’s predicament or, more properly, their predicament. This constitutes creating law out of whole cloth to buttress their argument for their inevitable decision which, lo and behold, supported their theory of how this should have been adjudicated. Mr. Carpenter has really earned his shekels if he prevails here. What it means to Mr. Hamer is a free paycheck for IU from 1989 to 2000. I agree with the precept that he’s not entitled to it, but the VA threw the first rock and then admitted their error 19 years later in an underhanded attempt to fix a very sticky wicket..
In all fairness, we shouldn’t come down on Mr. Hamer. He got the end of the stick with the defecation all over it in 85 and didn’t appeal. He legitimately won his argument for CUE in 2004 and that should have been the end of the matter. The BVA, in its own inimitable way, went to its paymaster the VA General Counsel and basically asked them how to fix Mr. Hamer’s wagon.
Those funny guys at the VA Office of General Counsel came up with this predictable “finding”:
PREC 1-2007 Applicability of 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(e) to TDIU Award Reinstated Based on CUE
I suppose if you were a scientist of the horizontal persuasion and wanted to prove your case that the world truly was flat, the best jury of your peers would be fellow members of the Flat Earth Society. In essence this is what the VLJ opted for.
That the Court didn’t pick this apart and see the non sequitur is appalling. Normally they are all over this kind of inequity like white on rice. A General Counsel finding in the middle of an adjudication should have made their collective hair stand on end. I wrongly impugned Mr. Hamer’s motives for appealing this last year and I humbly apologize to him and Mr. Carpenter. You cannot bend the law to prevent unjust awards. Yes, you read that right. Mr. Hamer is not legitimately entitled to his TDIU from 89 to 2000 because he was “working” in the truest sense of the word. He wouldn’t have been if the VA hadn’t committed CUE in 85, but that is a tenuous argument that will not avail him here. No, the injustice was in severing him in the first place. They compounded their error by asking the GC to craft a bulletproof finding that would cover their ass. Once they had it in the form of the VAOPGCPREC, they could walk all over his rights and dictate a new decision a la Fenderson. The Court aided and abetted this with even poorer reasoning. We can only hope Mr. Hamer’s appearance yesterday will inevitably prove to set another benchmark to VA law in our favor. We also pray the members of the Court take notes on this and avoid similar mistakes in the future.
As there is a vacancy on the Court bench, I would admonish our President to seriously consider appointing the Kenster to fill it. He sure isn’t making a killing representing us. On the other hand, this would deprive us of that which we sorely need when we appeal injustice.
This is part 2 of a three part judicial adventure. Here’s part 3:
https://asknod.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/surprise-surprise-surprise-hamers-baaaaaaack/
Posted in Fed. Cir. & Supreme Ct., Important CAVC/COVA Ruling, vARO Decisions
Tagged Help with vA Claims
7 Comments
BVA– PCT= HCV?
I found another one of these years ago and didn’t bookmark it. When I finally found this, I decided to print it anyway even if the case was remanded. It involves the reverse concept that PCT, as a known side-effect of HCV can be used to show a correlation to it as a claim. Our Veteran here has been rated for PCT as a presumptive disease associated with Agent Orange. He is now trying to swim upstream and reach HCV. I pointed to the same thing when I filed for Hep. The PCT was what clued me in to the Hep. initially, but I filed for both simultaneously. He’s represented by DAV and they have that “AO causes HCV” mentality. We know otherwise but VSOs haven’t gotten the briefing. Or, if they have, they’re still helping Vets lose by claiming thus. No conspiracy here- just stupidity.
This is interesting. I haven’t seen anything come up the ladder to the CAVC, so my feeling is that VA gave him all this. He was already rated in 05 and it will eventually end in TDIU or P&T if he gets really sick. Denying now (or then, when this was remanded) is an exercise in putting off the inevitable. Giving the Vet SC for hep. especially in lieu of his rating for PTSD would almost be axiomatic. You never know what these fellows will do, though. Vindictiveness runs in their blood. Reality is the only thing that makes them sky down.
http://www.va.gov/vetapp05/Files1/0500244.txt
Another important aspect illustrated for you is the concept of the Fenderson Staged Rating process outlined here. This is an appeal of an original rating with added issues. The Vet is appealing his denial of PTSD (and wins) but is also appealing his initial rating for his PCT (granted by the VARO). He has done his homework as I definitely don’t believe for a moment that the DAV chucklehead was aware of the 40% available under DC 7704 for PCT. I’ve only seen it used 6-7 times mostly by pro se Vets and only on appeal at the BVA. It is so basic a concept that it doesn’t warrant a trip up to the Big House. I like this one because it has a lot of excellent info for HCV/PCT guys like me.
Posted in AO, BvA HCV decisions
Tagged HCV, Help with vA Claims, Service Connection, VA claims, vA claims for PCT
Leave a comment
38 CFR § 20.900(c)– MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE
Members have asked me frequently what the parameters are for seeking an advancement on the docket. While this might sound like climbing Mt. Everest barefoot, it isn’t. There are four criteria for this in spite of the common misconception of two. Additionally, this is not something that can only be petitioned for to the BVA. Let’s review this. I print below 38 CFR § 20.900 first:
Here is the link if you wish to peruse it later
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/20/900
(a) Docketing of appeals. Applications for review on appeal are docketed in the order in which they are received. Cases returned to the Board following action pursuant to a remand assume their original places on the docket.
(b) Appeals considered in docket order. Except as otherwise provided in this Rule, appeals are considered in the order in which they are entered on the docket.
(c) Advancement on the docket— (1) Grounds for advancement. A case may be advanced on the docket on the motion of the Chairman, the Vice Chairman, a party to the case before the Board, or such party’s representative. Such a motion may be granted only if the case involves interpretation of law of general application affecting other claims, if the appellant is seriously ill or is under severe financial hardship, or if other sufficient cause is shown. “Other sufficient cause” shall include, but is not limited to, administrative error resulting in a significant delay in docketing the case or the advanced age of the appellant. For purposes of this Rule, “advanced age” is defined as 75 or more years of age. This paragraph does not require the Board to advance a case on the docket in the absence of a motion of a party to the case or the party’s representative.
(2) Requirements for motions. Motions for advancement on the docket must be in writing and must identify the specific reason(s) why advancement on the docket is sought, the name of the veteran, the name of the appellant if other than the veteran (e.g., a veteran’s survivor, a guardian, or a fiduciary appointed to receive VA benefits on an individual’s behalf), and the applicable Department of Veterans Affairs file number. The motion must be filed with: Director, Administrative Service (014), Board of Veterans’ Appeals, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. (This is for advancement on the BVA’s docket. All other request should go to your VARO)
(3) Disposition of motions. If a motion is received prior to the assignment of the case to an individual member or panel of members, the ruling on the motion will be by the Vice Chairman, who may delegate such authority to a Deputy Vice Chairman. If a motion to advance a case on the docket is denied, the appellant and his or her representative will be immediately notified. If the motion to advance a case on the docket is granted, that fact will be noted in the Board’s decision when rendered. (oddly, if the advance occurs at the VARO, you will never know except that justice sure seems to move right along).
(d) Consideration of appeals remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. A case remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action will be treated expeditiously by the Board without regard to its place on the Board’s docket.
(e) Postponement to provide hearing. Any other provision of this Rule notwithstanding, a case may be postponed for later consideration and determination if such postponement is necessary to afford the appellant a hearing.
§ 20.900(c) is up in the § 20s section of 38 CFR because it ostensibly only applies to cases before the Board. Not so. Any claimant can ask for this from Day One of his filing. Here is another little secret. They (your VARO) must make this determination within 90 days of your filing for such. It behooves you to supply them with everything needed to make this decision if you want to hit that 90 day number. One cannot simply ask for it and sit back and wait. You have to be proactive on this. You are petitioning them for special consideration so you must do the legwork to prove you are eligible. Once they have all the required information, the 90 day clock begins to tick. If you provide them with it at the outset with VA VISTA records and/or reams of credit card balances, it will begin sooner rather than later. They will not send you a letter saying they are granting it either. You will just notice things move along rather swimmingly.
So, with that laid out, you will notice the underlined portion in section (c). This is the one facet of the regulation most are not aware of. Usually, this is utilized to help older WW2 Vets. I petitioned on the grounds that my 1994 claim was unadjudicated and thus still open. VA accepted my argument or else they rightfully assumed I’m going to be room temperature sooner rather than later. I certainly haven’t given them any reason to believe otherwise. Four operations and a one year sojourn at the VAMC in a private room (MRSA) is a good beginning for this argument. Secondly, I put forth the argument that medical records from a civilian hospital in a war zone should have been treated as service medical records and collocated with my SMRs. Working for AirAm did not always give you the opportunity to just hop a plane back to civilization and the nearest military medical facility when you were bleeding out from a GSW.
HCV claimants have a leg up for this request. Those of you who are getting along as I am at 60ish, are usually rather advanced in the disease process. This mitigates for an advancement based on poor health. As most of us can no longer work, we have financial issues as well. I know I did and they just got worse the longer I waited. This is why I admonish the reader to start with this at the beginning rather than wade in and ask for it a year after filing when things are bogged down waiting for an IMO. Don’t think you are stepping on another Vet’s toes. Someone filing for acne vulgaris or hemorrhoids does not face the same time constraints as you.
Lord, I felt so guilty when I first set foot in the Seattle VAMC in 1989. I asked myself what on earth I was doing there. I had nothing more than a simple, screwed up back with radiculopathy down into my hips for 20 years. Outside the entrance were Vietnam Vets with no legs and some without arms either, happily smoking and sharing jokes. I felt so out of place compared to these warriors. It seemed that I was the interloper who might somehow detract from their financial or medical needs. Three years later when my health started going south and I found out what Agent Orange was doing to me, my sentiments changed. While the feeling persists that I am less worthy than one who has lost limbs to war, I console myself by keeping in mind that my injuries are virtually invisible, but far more lethal. This is one of the hardest concepts for many Vets to overcome. VA aids and abets this insecurity through VSOs by implying that somehow you are a “willfully disabled Vet” or one that is not as “entitled” as other real Vets. Some of those we have helped have reported that the SOs they approached were loathe to take their cases and went so far as to imply it was a waste of their time. I won’t go into how I feel about this subject line, but I saw the raised eyebrows of my rep. and the knowing look traded with another SO sitting beside him in 1994. It spoke volumes as to their belief that I obtained this from drugs.
Now that I have that off my chest, I can proceed. Asking for advancement and being denied same is not good. Of course they will think you are trying to cut in line if you request this without documentation. I don’t think I need to explain why. Go look on another Veterans Web site that has pink in the background and examine the laundry list of problems these guys and gals are trying to hang on their service. I mean no disrespect to anyone, but it seems something is amiss when Vets come out the other end of a four year enlistment as a paper pusher and have more ills than combat Vets. I don’t buy it. HCV secondary to paper cuts? Hemorrhoids due to sitting too long at a desk? Bunions due to those nasty combat boots you wore for 6-8 weeks in Basic and never donned again?
I hope this little diatribe reinforces your resolve if you were wavering on this subject. HCV and resultant cirrhosis waits for no one, be it Veteran or civilian. The hosts of ills that travel with this circus are horrible and debilitate you further. As such, you legitimately should file for advancement. Your time on earth absent SVR (HCV remission), is measurable- not some nebulous concept that may or may not come to pass. It is incumbent on you, especially if you have a spouse, to start making provisions for the future now. Advancement on the docket, even at the RO level, is prudent if you qualify. I think I speak for all Vets when I say that most would advocate for a triage philosophy that comprehends the sickest and neediest be afforded a quicker resolution to their claim(s). I apologize if I seem selfish about this. No Vet is better than another, even if they served in time of war. Hate me if you will, but I advocate for the sickest first.
BVA– BENT BRAIN + ETOH = SC
From the gambling halls of Reno, we are treated to this gem of jurisprudence. Judge George R. Senyk is another judge who is no stranger to the BVA corral so I’m sure he’s seen a lot of these. However he must have been scratching his head when he read the VA-provided nexus letters by the “specialists”. Here’s a split decision that grants alcoholism (substance abuse) as a disease secondary to Bent Brain Syndrome (PTSD). This, in itself, isn’t so infrequent as to warrant attention. Our Renonian also has the Hep, but VA is going to deny on that. They will grant the liver transplant as being SC too, but only because of the alcohol. Even though the two diseases (alcoholism and HCV) are co-equally responsible, VA will reason that 50.0001% was caused by alcohol rather than hep and therefore give him the SC for this as well. Vet wins big with new liver, right? Not so fast, Hoppalong. If he dies before his ten year protected rating date of November, 2015 from what they adjudge as HCV-related liver cirrhosis, then the P&T evaporates and if he has a wife and kids under 18, it’s bye-bye compensation and any DIC/DEA hopes.
If you were service connected 100% for PTSD and died within the first 10 years of that rating, your heirs/spouse lose. Ten years and one day? Then they’re good to go. Interesting concept. Here the American Legion has done some phenomenal horse trading and got this Vet a stellar deal. You will notice that VA is still in denial about the whole jetguns, razors,and toothbrushes thing. They are willing to give him the cirrhosis of the liver only as alcohol-related to dodge the HCV bullet. Very interesting. In the next paragraph below I present the VA’s infectious disease specialist’s nexus theory, or should I say non-theory. VA has a marked propensity to always point to something and say “Here. See? Right here the Vet said he did thus and so. He admitted that he (fill in “snorted, shot up, huffed, drank, absorbed, inserted in body cavity”) on this date to VA medical personnel. This is where he got the bug. Willful misconduct!”
What’s interesting in this decision is how the Vet didn’t get it. They have spent a lot of energy proving what it isn’t from (the PTSD), but strangely are not the least inquisitive as to ascertaining the etiology. You just don’t see this in VA adjudications. Ts have to be crossed and Is dotted before the denial can ensue. The sordid truth must be revealed. The culprit must be unmasked. The method and frequency of ingestion must be identified.
In March 2011, a physician from the infectious disease department of a VAMC stated that he had reviewed the Veteran’s medical records as well as the psychiatry specialist’s opinion regarding the hepatitis C, alcohol use and PTSD. The medical expert noted studies regarding the causes of hepatitis C, and found, in essence, that the Veteran’s hepatitis C is unrelated to his service or to his service connected PTSD with alcohol abuse. Regarding the Veteran’s alternative theory of entitlement, that his hepatitis C is the result of exposure to infected blood/blood products in service, the medical expert opined that razors, sutures, and suture needles are an ineffective vector for transmission; casual exposure of intact skin to infected blood or body parts is insufficient to produce a hepatitis C infection; and although jet injector use (vaccinations) can be associated with hepatitis C transmission, this is usually recognized in an outbreak situation where there has been a breach in standard operating procedure. Thus, the VHA medical expert’s opinion is against the Veteran’s claim that his hepatitic C is secondary to his service-connected PTSD and alcohol abuse . The Veteran has presented no competent (medical) evidence to the contrary. His own statements (that his hepatitis C is the result of exposure to infected blood in service or is secondary to PTSD/alcohol abuse are not competent evidence; he is a layperson and lacks the training to opine in a matter that is beyond the capability of lay observation. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
VA has always held that alcoholism is a risk factor for HCV, yet here we see that is no longer true. A specialist in these things has spoken. In several weeks he will probably be called to opine on another Vet who has a history of alcoholism, HCV but no Bent Brain Syndrome. The doctor will undoubtedly come down on the alcoholism leading to the HCV but no explanation as to how this is possible. I suppose a homeless Vet toasted on MD 20-20 could pass out and do a face plant into a small pool of blood from his HCV-positive buddy for several hours and rise with the disease. VA denials are always carefully crafted to fit the circumstances. Here we have a classic example.
I suppose the good news is that AmLeg will get their photo op with this fellow if they invite him to their bar. You won’t see many of these types of decisions, but this is a good primer if you’re planning the “bent brain syndrome ate my liver with Alcohol” defense. The teaching moment is also that you should claim alcoholism rather than blood exposure as your hep risk factor secondary to PTSD because it is recognized as one, apparently. Well, except for here, most of the time. I think. Except in Reno. Right?
http://www.va.gov/vetapp11/Files3/1122102.txt
Posted in BvA HCV decisions, Jetgun BvA Decisions
Tagged HCV, Help with vA Claims, Jetguns, Service Connection, VA claims
Leave a comment

