VA Compensation Rates– In Case Of Success, Click Here.

Posted on October 1, 2011 by asknod

http://www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/Rates/comp01.htm

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

BVA- Hep/Cirrhosis dilemma–DANGER!

Posted on October 1, 2011 by asknod

Here’s a horror story I’m sure some of you Veterans have encountered by now. Imagine filing for SC for hep and cirrhosis and winning. Your med recs support it and you are most definitely entitled to it. One little problem. You are still healthy enough to soldier on and the cirrhosis hasn’t progressed to a decompensated liver yet with all the attendant side effects so common to the disease. VA rates you at 30% for the cirrhosis (D.C. 7312) and 20% for the Hep (D.C. 7354). So far so good? Not quite. Let’s just say for argument’s purpose that you are slowly going down hill and your health is starting to become an issue. It happens slowly as we all know but it happens. When it does, you usually motor on down to your AMLEG or VFW post and tell the VSO what’s up and they put in a claim for an increase in your rating.

Unfortunately, due to the way 7354 is set up, you are at a strategic disadvantage for rating purposes if your hep is complicated by the cirrhosis factor. At the bottom of the 7354 rating are several notes that basically state you cannot pyramid your claim. That term means you cannot use the rating criteria for cirrhosis issues to up your rating percentage for hep and vice versa.  If you are SC for both then you will be rated on a percentage basis for each individually with extra caution on VA’s part not to duplicate the symptoms of one with the other. It looks good and reasonable until you get to the percentage of disability. VA will do what they did to this Vet with a 20/30 % for hep /cirrhosis even though his true disability picture is higher.  This happens so frequently now that it is really starting to interfere with Vet’s rights to a compensation % commensurate with their true illness.

We at AskNod don’t advocate how Vets should present their claims. We do try to illuminate problem areas you may encounter and this is a big one. We suggest you focus on the real culprit first which is Hepatitis. Get your SC and a rating for this. If your disability picture is extreme, concentrate on a 100% disability rating. If it hasn’t risen to that level yet, then settle for the 60% and never forget that TDIU is now on the table automatically since the Rice v. Shinseki (2009) ruling at the CAVC.  The high Court in AB v. Brown (1995) found that a Vet is automatically seeking the highest compensation he can get when he applies for SC. This just confirmed what we all knew for all these years. Why would a Vet put in a claim for hep and request a 10% rating if he were entitled to a 20 or 40% one?  He wouldn’t and AB v. Brown affirmed that. The Clemons case added the caveat that if TDIU was appropriate then if should be considered automatically without the Vet having to beg for it separately.

Once you have attained the absolute highest rating you are entitled to for the Hep, the matter of cirrhosis should be considered. Trust me, assuming you never attained SVR via Interferon/Ribavirin therapy, Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) is definitely in your future. Your liver will almost always degenerate slowly and eventually become decompensated. When this happens you have reached Stage 4 cirrhosis. Either you get a transplant or you die eventually. That might sound brutal but it is a medical fact. There usually is a period of stability from having a compensated (or functioning) liver and a decompensated (or non-functional) one once you’ve been diagnosed as cirrhotic.

This is the time in our minds for you to file for 7312. Even if you are rated 60% for Hep, you’d need a 90 % rating for cirrhosis to attain a 100% scheduler rating. Let’s imagine they gave you 30% for cirrhosis.  That would simply advance your rating to 70%. A 50% rating would only get you to 80%. Granted, you would probably be granted a TDIU, but you must realize you have to report annually for an exam to ascertain that you are still eligible for it. No, the 100% scheduler rating for the hep is still the advisable course if your symptoms support it.  Or, if you are late to this game and get SC when you have already hit the wall with cirrhosis, a 100% rating for that would be a good choice, too. We will tell you that you have to be pretty sick to get 100% total cirrhosis rating though.

With all this new knowledge, witness the poor Vet below defending himself pro se who has just stumbled across this dilemma. Accordingly, meet the poor Vet from San Juan, Puerto Rico who is preparing to be introduced to VA’s “non-adversarial judicial system” where the benefit of the doubt always accrues to the Vet…

http://www.va.gov/vetapp10/Files1/1002416.txt

The problem is a travesty of justice.-a catch 22. It hinges on §4.16, the pyramiding clause and therein lies the problem. Much like a black hole, the claimant cannot escape once he enters the event horizon (filing for both). Please, if you even reach this point, do not listen to your wife, sig. other or SO. We’ve been there with our own member. You will spend an eternity in D.C. and it will be aeons before you see $.

Posted in BvA HCV decisions | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

BVA–1151 Claim-Contaminated VA Transfussion

Posted on October 1, 2011 by asknod

9/22/11     

     As we have current member(s) fighting VA over this issue, I include this as the latest BVA word on the subject. Valuable info is always gleaned from these even if there is nothing precedental about them. For those of you from Yorba Linda, that means it won’t set a President.

     Interestingly enough, the Veterans Law Judge who decided this is the one assigned to my case- Mark D. Hindin. I think the man has character and is well-versed in VA law. He’s been there since 1995 in one capacity or another. He seems conversant on VA hep. law as well. Now, If they would give my case to him for adjudication instead of ditzing around with it…


Posted in BvA HCV decisions | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

BVA–Read and heed: 100% ratings

Posted on October 1, 2011 by asknod

All Vets filing or still appealing for a higher rating on an existing claim should read this decision. It was well done by the Vet. He did slip on the DM2 nexus , but will probably win if he uses his noggin.He just needs his hep. doctor to state as much.

 
Posted in BvA HCV decisions | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

BVA–NGU = Service Connection

Posted on October 1, 2011 by asknod

Something that needs to be expressed more frequently is that sexual promiscuity in service was not willful misconduct when we were in. I assume that is still the case but I don’t keep up on that kind of thing. It may come to pass that with the end of DADT and permissiveness of having gays openly serving, that we will experience an uptick in HIV/HCV cases. That remains to be seen as the military hasn’t yet completed the changeover.

     I have had Service officers who profess that it is willful misconduct to come down with the clap in service. My MOPH rep. even went so far as to say tattoos were, but we know that isn’t the case. There’s not enough room at Fort Leavenworth to incarcerate 75% of the enlisted Navy and Marines who were guilty of that.  I won’t go into it any further than to wonder why you’d put something permanent on you when you’re inebriated. It shouldn’t come as a surprise when you wake up and find it. The problem seems to arise 20 years later when your spouse wonders who the chick with big tits named Patsy is/was.

     Getting back to clap and all things VD, we can blame it on alcohol just as easily as being caught out without protection. I do know that you were welcome to help yourself to as many protective devices as you desired when I was in sunny Southeast Asia. I and many of my friends availed ourselves of this generous policy to install them on the ends of our CAR-16s, the occasional Thompsons, M-79s and especially shotguns.  They worked very well for the purpose. I suppose they were also useful for preventing the spread of disease. I had several incidents of “non-gonococcal urethritis (NGU) which I attributed to failure to observe that protocol. What? You think Mr. NOD was a complete saint? I’m not proud of it, but I foolishly depended on ladies of the night having a current, up to date, stamped VD card saying they were free of these things. Alcohol can impair your eyesight from what I have read.

     The military used to do everything in their power short of confining us to base to reduce the numbers. We had lectures and photo slide shows of the horrors of it. Somehow that never dimmed our desires. When I was eventually seconded to Air America there were no lectures. They really couldn’t punish me for it even though that may have been their policy. I was still technically in the Air Force regardless of the fact that my ID said United States Agency for International Development. The fiction was that I was a “French teacher”.  We had no bases per se, just operating locations. The prostitution trade was 160 klics south in Vientiane. One did not consort with the local Hmong maidens at risk of becoming married to them. Shotgun weddings were still in high fashion for any so foolish and our government did little or nothing if we were caught in flagrento delecto.

     I have seen many ratings at the BVA that were denied at the RO under the mistaken belief that it was willful misconduct or “less likely than not”. ROs are fond of denying Hep. even  if  your STD occurred in service and was fully documented. Their rationale is that it is very rare.  Conversely, if it happened after service and you mentioned it in your risk factors questionnaire, VA will focus on this risk being the most salient to the exclusion of all others except drugs. VA doesn’t explain the dichotomy of European and Asian STDS being HCV-free nor do they explain how VD in America is rife with it. The below decision is an example of this.

     So, with this in mind, if you do have SMRs that document Winky getting dirty, you should list it as a risk factor. You won’t win at the RO, but you sure will at the BVA. They may call it the benefit of the doubt, but who cares? Service connection is a bitch under the best of circumstances, so all’s fair in love and war (no pun intended).

http://www.va.gov/vetapp11/Files2/1118033.txt

Posted in BvA HCV decisions | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

BVA–No Nexus=Dreambucks

Posted on October 1, 2011 by asknod

I had to search for a perfect example of this to illustrate the folly of filing a claim without a nexus. This Veteran could have, and most assuredly should have, won this claim. We won’t go into why his Service Officer from VFW let him get to court without it, nor why he was dissuaded from having a Travel Board hearing or a Videoconference one.

This case illustrates a train wreck in slow motion. The BVA summarizes all the evidence in Lawspeak and we watch helplessly as the fellow’s claim disintegrates in the best Hollywood slow motion. The tattoo in question that is the precursor to the destruction probably did occur during service. To use a different recollection of events as the evidence to prove his testimony is unreliable is very flimsy.  However, it does reveal how far the VA will go to find a chink in your armour.

The reader will notice also that the Vet had a viable risk factor despite the lack of a recorded tattoo. He was a combat engineer-as in Gee, let’s go build a road through a free-fire zone without any support. We can always call Superman with our Jimmy Olsen high-pitched whistle slash wristwatch. Combat engineers were part insane, part macho and very good shots in that “conflict”. They had to be in order to avoid becoming a Charles Darwin statistic.

The VA decided to can this with a VHA opinion. So much for an Independent Medical Opinion.  The VHA examiner dutifully wrote a well-reasoned treatise on why this gentleman came down with HCV slightly later than a year after service. The incubation period was too long. The blood of wounded soldiers he came in contact with was free of HCV.

This was the positive evidence against his claim.  Now, what wasn’t done to develop the claim that might have proved his contentions? You will notice that in spite of being mentioned, there was no testing done to ascertain if the Veteran was seropositive for Hep A or B. If he was exposed to B, he very well might have contracted C at the same time. That was one of the theories my doctor explored in his nexus for me. B and C can only be transmitted via direct blood exposure. Hep. A is a food born illness only. Often, what wasn’t explored as a risk is as telling as what was. For instance, there’s no mention of the jetgun until appeal. Too late in the Board’s eyes. Besides the Vet has no medical training, so this seems to be a last ditch defense volunteered by none other that Mr. Veteran’s untrained legal representative.  How about deciding not to have a hearing? Buddy statements confirming the tattoo was applied in service? All of these were missed or overlooked. We won’t go into the Monday morning Quarterback mode and analyze the could ofs, would ofs and should ofs. If we’re reading this now we only hope our Vet friend appealed up to the Court. It’s too late to introduce new evidence, but never too late to claim failure to assist.

These two paragraphs speak volumes to the loss:

This VHA medical opinion appears to have been based on a thorough review of the record, including the Veteran’s comprehensive treatment records, and a thoughtful analysis of the Veteran’s entire history.  See Bloom v. West, 12 Vet. App. 185, 187 (1999) [the probative value of a physician’s statement is dependent, in part, upon the extent to which it reflects “clinical data or other rationale to support his opinion”].  The Board therefore finds the July 2010 VHA opinion to be probative as to the issue of medical nexus.

Also of record as to the issue of medical nexus is the opinion of the September 2006 VA examiner.  Specifically, the VA examiner stated that “the Veteran’s hepatitis C infection is as likely as not related to previous history of hepatitis in 1971, tattoo left upper arm in 1968.”  Critically, the VA examiner provided no rationale for this conclusion and also failed to provide an opinion concerning the relationship, if any, between the Veteran’s hepatitis and his in-service blood exposure.  See Hernandez- Toyens v. West, 11 Vet. App. 379, 382 (1998) [the failure of the physician to provide a basis for his/her opinion goes to the weight or credibility of the evidence].  Accordingly, the Board finds the September 2006 VA opinion to be of little probative value.

It is obvious from the above in red that the Vet had won this and someone higher up overrode the rater. How else could there be a positive finding of SC?

As we all know, or should, HCV travels on its own schedule and manifests itself very differently from one individual to another. Witness that I just lost a friend May 11th eight years my junior to this. He had it when he came out of service in 1988 and was granted a 10% rating by VA. When he started to slide downhill in 2006, he filed for an increase.   After two years of denials, he finally came here and we got him lined out on a game plan. He was awarded 180% in early 2009 but it was too late to enjoy. He went from Stage 0 to complete portal hypertension and cirrhosis in 24 years. I’m still relatively vertical after 40 and am Stage 3.5.  Johnny was no Mormon, but he wasn’t a lush.  The important thing in retrospect here is that confounded nexus or the lack of an independent one.

Take this to heart when you file. Get the groundwork done and a good foundation laid prior to building a claim on it. If your chances of winning are 15%, then having all the Hickson elements sewn up before filing will bring the odds up considerably. Make it so, Number One.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp11/files1/1102254.txt

Posted in BvA HCV decisions | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

BVA–New JetGun Win W/ 2 Nexi.

Posted on October 1, 2011 by asknod

       Here is a Lady Vet with her act together. She came armed and dangerous to this shindig. It had to go to the BVA to be won, but we expect that nowadays. The VLJ used some cutting edge logic to cut through the poor reasoning of the VA examiner. These paragraphs caught my eye:

The only other medical opinion on this question was that of the  November 2007 VA examiner.  She reviewed the claims file, noted  in-service hepatitis A and B diagnoses, and concluded that she  could not “make a determination without mere speculation” as to  the current hepatitis C was caused by service.  She noted that  there were no positive markers for non-A, non-B viral hepatitis  infection, that the Veteran had separate infection of hepatitis A  and hepatitis B, and that hepatitis A is a self limiting viral  infection and does not lead to hepatitis B.  The examiner  concluded that, although the risk factors for hepatitis B and C  are similar, hepatitis B does not convert into hepatitis C.   In weighing the above medical opinions, the Board notes that each  are flawed.  Drs.   Carrera and Frenette each erroneously noted that the Veteran was  diagnosed in service with non-A, non-B hepatitis.  However, it  appears to the Board from the context of their remarks that they  meant to indicate that diagnoses of hepatitis A or hepatitis B in  service could have been erroneous diagnoses of what was actually  hepatitis C.

      The November 2007 VA examiner’s statement that  hepatitis B does not convert to hepatitis C is beside the point,  as there is no argument that such a “conversion” occurred, but,  rather, that the hepatitis B diagnosis was in fact an erroneous  diagnosis of what was actually hepatitis C.  Moreover, in Jones  v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 382 (2009), the Court held that, before  the Board can rely on an examiner’s conclusion that an etiology  opinion would be speculative, the examiner must explain the basis  for such an opinion or the basis must otherwise be apparent in  the Board’s review of the evidence.  Id. at 390.  It must also be  clear that the physician has considered “all procurable and  assembled data.”  Id (citing Daves v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 46  (2006)).  Finally, the physician must clearly identify precisely  what facts cannot be determined.  Id.  The November 2007 VA  examiner’s conclusion does not appear to meet these criteria, as  she did not indicate that she had considered the evidence  regarding jet gun injections or the possibility that the  hepatitis B diagnosis was an erroneous diagnosis of what was  actually hepatitis C.  In regard to the comment that there were  no markers, we are unable to determine whether there were markers  that were negative for non-A non-B or that there was an absence  of testing for markers.

She used the Nevada Office of Veterans Affairs (Reno). Seems like they are the go to people for VSOs judging by this.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp11/files1/1105990.txt

Posted in BvA HCV decisions, Jetgun BvA Decisions | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Applying for Hep C?

Posted on October 1, 2011 by asknod
prvet
Avatar / Picture

Registered: 03/07/11
Posts: 8 
03/18/11 #1
Hi:
I want to know is there has been any case that have connected gonorrhea to hepc acquired during service in Vietnam. It was treated there and it should be in medical records. It could be possible? Thx

__________________
prsat@excite.com
Edit | Delete
NOD
Avatar / Picture

Manager
Registered: 11/22/08
Posts: 654 
03/19/11 #2
Dear sir,


     In answer to your question of the probability of contracting Hepatitis C via a  gonorrhea vector, the answer is a resounding yes. See the following cite from BVA archives. While you cannot use this as a precedent-setting case, it shows you how it is done and why the Vet was successful. Since you have this evidence of infection and treatment in service, this will result in a win for you absent any other intercurrent behavior such as IV drug abuse following service that has been documented in private or VA medical records. A liver biopsy usually shows the degree of destruction of the liver thus giving a chronological date for the infection. A stage 2-4 infection (Metavir scale) usually indicates an older infection date of 30 + years. This will be an easy case to win if you do it right. You also will have to get a good nexus letter from your doctor that succinctly implicates the STD as the disease vector.
     On the other hand is the decision below. Here, the Veteran contends his gonorrhea in service is the cause of his hepatitis. However, he has no nexus from an M.D. to substantiate his theory. Additionally, he has a history of drug abuse which really puts a fork in it. Do you see the difference? Vet A above was suitably prepared and had supportive evidence to buttress his contentions. Vet B below has none of these and carries the onus of a drug abuser which is willful misconduct. While we feel tremendous compassion for this Vet, it is unfortunate that he will not win. Life choices are determinative factors in what happens to you. If you choose to venture into this arena, you cannot later blame anything or anyone for the outcome. SSD is available to those who do, but VA compensation is right out.
We wish you Godspeed in your claims process and thank you for you unswerving support for America as a serviceman. Your unselfish contribution to our freedom has now put you in an untenable predicament. You deserve compensation and we sincerely hope you succeed.
Edit | Delete
prvet
Avatar / Picture

Registered: 03/07/11
Posts: 8 
03/19/11 #3
Thanks for your fast response and help.
__________________
prsat@excite.com
Edit | Delete
marlinanddiane
Registered: 05/20/10
Posts: 27 
05/01/11 #4
Been going to va since 2007, two for them to find out I had Hep C, Chronic,
Was in Germany in Va war 1971- 1974. A mechanic, cut hand daily blood contact with rags, but had alot of dental work, and stomach trouble, then, apprentic surgery. In hospital 37 days and send home for healing. My records are lost for the surgery just the dates I was in the hospital.
I have such brain fog, can’t remember alot, but family member told me I was sick with a infection and got a blood product. The va doctor, said he would write a nexus for me, the only problem, is he just doesn’t do it.
Been waiting for 6 months. My records is check that I had stomach, liver, appendix problems on exit of my military physical. What shall I do, my time in running out to appeal the claim, waiting on doctor. Do you think I have a chance. Also on interfron 6 months and had to stop treatment because of lungs infections, and hospitalize for infection. Now having serious brain issue, going to the neuro guy Tuesday, they did a MRI with dye. Extreme brain fog, and balance problems. HELP, someone tell me what to do.
Edit | Delete
NOD
Avatar / Picture

Manager
Registered: 11/22/08
Posts: 654 
05/01/11 #5
     I can tell you why the doctor won’t write your nexus, Marlin. Somehow you’ve gotten the sort end of a shitty stick. It’s the Catch 22 problem. You probably got the Hep from service. The Army has somehow lost or misplaced the records. I guess you’ve already tried the NPRC in St. Louis so I won’t insult your intelligence by asking if you have asked for them there. Besides, VA would have asked for them, too. My suggestion is to write a letter to the Army and ask them to cough them up. I’d also shoot a letter off to the base hospital in Germany and ask them WTF? The last shot is to call/write the hospital where you recovered stateside. If they airlifted you back here, your medrecs were in a sleeve hanging off your stretcher. No way are they going to send you back without them. They exist, but where in the hell they put them is the $64 question. One last shot is to file a FOIA with the Army and ask them to cough them up. And please call your Congressman or Senator and ask for help from them. Each one has a Congressional liaison who does this from 0800-1600 every day for a living. Make the lumpa lumpas earn their keep. I do not know how long ago you filed the appeal, but they are currently taking 4 months just to package them up and send them to the BVA. From there its about two years to a docket date. You could get this stuff by then. I know this sounds like a bunch of hopeless advice, but it is what I would do if faced with this predicament.I know all about the transfusion issue. Mine evaporated ,too. Thank God the GSW is so visible.


     The VA doc is gun shy about simply transcribing what you say happened and then signing his name to it. He wants to see some kind of evidence, too. I can understand that. It wouldn’t cut any mustard with the VA anyway without his seeing some contemporary Medrecs. VA calls that subjective history and hucks it in the circular file. 

     One avenue a lot of Vets overlook is the buddy route. If you can remember anyone you served with that you can contact for a “buddy statement” that will support your assertions, you may certainly go that route. What most Vets do not realize is that their lay testimony about events is given far more weight than they realize unless it is inherently incredible. Anything you can glean from your five senses is permissible evidence. You cannot strap on the Ben Casey jacket and opine about medical matters though. If you were jaundiced, you can sure report that your skin looked like OJ (not the football player). Your appendectomy scar is further evidence to support your claim. A ruptured appendix is often accompanied by sepsis and surely requires a transfusion in many instances. 

      I would ask any Vets who read this post who are adroit at computerese to help by searching for your buddies if you can give us names to post. You can also ask the Army to help find them but I’m betting they aren’t going to start looking very soon.

     Last, but not least, you can petition the BVA for more time to prove your case. This is something best done early so as not to surprise them at the last moment. Tell them you are still trying to develop evidence, Marlin. I know there are others far more savvy than me that can help find someone. I’m a computer idiot so I am useless.                        
Edit | Delete
hcvet
Moderator
Registered: 11/22/08
Posts: 48 
05/02/11 #6
marlinanddiane if you have your service med records, even if it doesn’t state what happened, contact Dr. Ben Cecil and tell him HCVets sent you and it’s urgent. here is his info bdceci01@iglou.com It will take a few days, but he’ll answer.

Hepatitis Doctor- Dr. Ben Cecil is board certified in Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology/Hepatology. In addition, he trained 2 years in pathology at Duke University Medical Center and a physician for 25 years. Dr. Cecil   has the highest clear rate with in the Veterans Administration Medical Centers because he offers an individualized method of treatment

 
Edit | Delete
marlinanddiane
Registered: 05/20/10
Posts: 27 
06/10/11 #7
Well Friends, Today I did a search on Hep C claim for the Nashville, Tn board. There is not one claim that won out of this office. I quess I’m under fight to the end on this matter. I pray and hope I can put together a strong claim. Any suggest ion

 for this close mind office. I truly appreciatate all of your help.
Edit | Delete
squid_with_dragon
Avatar / Picture

Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 132 
06/10/11 #8
Hi, How are ya! 🙂

My claim for Hep C is similiar to yours in a few ways. First, I was injured overseas and treated in a military hospital overseas, which was the source of my infection. Second my, claim was denied by the VARO because they couldn’t find my military service medical records. I too had a VSO that turned out to be about as useful as fangs on a chicken.

I don’t think your VARO is much different than mine or any other, just that it seems that some are worse about processing HCV claims than others. I wouldn’t worry about what your VARO does or doesn’t do because you won’t be able to fix them anyway. One thing is for certain, this boat won’t sail without my military medrecs showing my hospital stay and my treatments while I was there.

Ludy luck smiled on me big time when I found my military hospital records at the bottom of a filing cabinet. I have no idea how long they have been there, but I have them! However It would be best if I have the entire enchilada for as long as I was active duty if I can find them. I did get my military personnel records from St Louis. Because I also need to show that I was a good boy and to show that I was attached to the command that I said I was at the time.

VA will help you search for your military medrecs if you dial this number: 1-888-533-4558

You will need to supply your claim number when you call. I don’t know if they will be able to help you locate them or not, but they might know who the baton was passed to. She gave me a number in Millington to try (I was Navy, Army is different) but so far I have not been able to get anything yet. Good luck! 🙂
Posted in General Messages | Leave a comment

Horse Trading At The BVA Corral.

Posted on October 1, 2011 by asknod

       We see this ploy more and more now as resources become more dear. Someone higher up has finally started paying attention to funding and realizes the VA is getting ready to get slammed with a lot of claims that the Vet will win. Response? “Well, hell, Bubba. Let’s you, your rep and me have a little off the record talk back here in my office. Coffee? We’re prepared to give you 100% on the brainfuck, 60% on the Ischemic Heart Disease from the AO and SMC-S of $320/ mo. and you drop the hep claim, the TDIU and everyone goes home happy. We’ll remand back to the AOJ and you can take up the earlier effective date of 2006 with them ’cause we don’t own that one. So, whatdya say? We got a deal?”.

 

 

 

When you matter-of-factly pull out the Claymore, slowly and securely anchor it into place, check one last time that you have correctly positioned the “FACE THIS SIDE TOWARDS ENEMY” and start laying out the wire for your actuator you suddenly get their undivided attention. At this point they wish to start a “dialogue” with you.

 

 

 

The VA has long had the General George Armstrong Custer habit of Dying on the Hill for no good reason. When defeat is inevitable, they will soldier on as one to the end. This monolithic, stoical behaviour is futile, economically unfeasible and generally results in a lot of appeals these days. Veterans as a class have become more and more savvy the older they get. With the advent of the internet and access to the bowels of the VA’s ratings habits, we are discovering, like the Emperor, we too have been naked all these years.

 

 

 

The VA, in splendid isolation from the public and Congress, had been getting away with judicial murder for decades and more. With the exposure the internet provides, they can no longer do this. I suspect you will see a lot more of this in the future where Vietnam Vets are concerned. The writing is on The Wall.

 

 

 

http://www.va.gov/vetapp11/Files1/1106191.txt

 

 

 

Right after I posted this, I came across another example. The Vet below is AO exposed. He’s sick and will not be around for a lot longer. The tradeoff is simple. The VA is sick to death of this HCV vs. jetguns controversy. They can see some inevitable writing on the wall, but are trying to stave off disaster financially. What better way than to divert attention away from it? The expedient thing to do is to grant for the Prostate issue w/ a high % rating which he will win anyway and give him the wave off on the Hep. Vet gets $ and VA gets closure (denial) on HCV claim. Win-win for VA. Lose-lose for you if you auger in with HCC or portal hypertension.

 

 

 

http://www.va.gov/vetapp11/Files1/1101080.txt

 

 

 

One thing Vets can take away from this decision is another way of being able to prove boots on the ground inVietnam. VA is fond of denying squids and wet foot Marines for AO based on their never touching land or not being able to prove it. This may be true if they sailed over from America on the  S.S. Minnow, but not all did. Some traveled by air and landed at our favorite airpatch (Tan Son Nhut) in Saigon and then deployed to the fleet. All Brown water squids did this. So keep that in you bag of tricks if they try to sandbag you. Chances are you didn’t sail on the S.S. Minnow to Sydney for R&R either. Most of us flew there- from the Saigon Airpatch. And that, gentlemen, is boots in that sweet, gritty  red clay which means presumptive exposure.

 

 

 

Posted in BvA HCV decisions | Leave a comment

BVA- Hemorrhoids= HCV

Posted on October 1, 2011 by asknod

Yes, gentle reader, you read that right. HCV from surgery to correct hemorrhoids.  Once upon a time in polite society we would have never presumed to print this for the reader’s edification. Only in America. A win is a win no matter how ugly or sore. Besides, the header is a bit of an eye grabber.

Posted in BvA HCV decisions | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment