Veterans Claims Help

Remember, Veterans, when you obtain a nexus from a doctor, it has to be phrased exactly right or it is a wasted effort. This ruling is a classic example of that which I speak. This Veteran did everything correctly with the exception of parsing the nexus in “more likely”, “most likely” or “at least as likely as not”. Any nexus to an event 35 + years ago is necessarily subjective to say the least. A doctor must analyze what, where, when, how, and come up with a diagnosis predicated on those risks. VA has taken the stance recently ( within the last 8 years or so) that it must be couched in the terms mentioned above. Any use by a doctor of the terms “possibly”, “probably”, “could have”,” might have” or similar phrases results in rejection. To prove my point, I have included this BVA ruling. I suspect that the Vet might have won this pissing match but for the defective language in his VA doctor’s nexus. Had the proper phrase been employed, I suspect that the VA would have caved in and given him the SC. If you give them any slack, they will hang you. The Vet was very honest and even admitted some no-nos that would shine an unfavorable light on this claim. But he lost his fight when he didn’t prep the Doctor with a dos and don’ts on what is permissible or, rather, advisable. For those of you preparing to do battle with VA, let this be a valuable lesson. You want to win at the earliest point. Going up to the BVA is the second assault. You will actually have the higher chance of winning here if you screwed up @ the VARO level. Unless you or your law dogs can find something BVA did wrong, taking it up to the CAVC is going to be an excercise in futility. Keep this in mind. Examine everything you assemble for your claim. Read through all the little tricks of the trade we have assembled in our articles on claim filing and nexus preparation. Think BOY SCOUT. You can win but you have to follow the recipe. This gentleman squandered an opportunity by not having what he needed. Close only counts in hand grenades and Claymores and my personal favorite- Napalm.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp08/Files1/0804757.txt

This is an interesting case. An ACTING VLJ is hearing it so he wants to get it right as he is the FNG. So he’s playing it strictly by the book.   If you think this was an accident, you probably still believe in the Tooth Fairy. VA will stop at nothing in their relentless pursuit of a 0 claims granted policy. One could reasonably assume one’s claim was going to vetted for accuracy, that the facts would be analyzed objectively, and a decision based on valid facts would be rendered. This Cherry AVLJ can see the bum’s rush afforded the VET, and is remanding it in order to obtain more info. That, of course, will not guarantee a favorable or fair outcome,but it does put the VARO of Indianville on notice that they got busted for cheating. Best bet for all Vets is to keep a copy of everything you get near in VAville and to check it for accuracy before you leave to go to the little Vet’s room. Just one Vet’s opinion, mind you.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp08/Files4/0833538.txt

Readjudication on a De Novo basis means going back to the original decision date in 1997 and starting over. It’s like a brand new claim. You can introduce new evidence, old evidence, anything you want and they have to accept it. This is very important. Let’s look at my case. I was denied in 1994. They said I wasn’t in Vietnam and turned me down for AO(porphyria cutanea tarda-aka PCT) and also denied my hepatitis claim. My VSO did not file my Form 9 and my claim died after one year. Fast forward to 2007. I refile with evidence of duty in Vietnam and a doctor’s nexus of both Hepatitis and PCT secondary to the hep. VA grants my claim for Hep. and PCT, but only back to my 2007 filing date. My NOD/ appeal for a Decision Review Officer to review the effective date of 1994 is pending. I will appeal it all the way to the CAVC if necessary, but I suspect the DRO will readjudicate this on a De Novo basis and grant the claim. The law is dispositive in this regard. My evidence of duty/visitation(TDY orders) to Vietnam has been accepted as a valid military document. Once that occurs, they have to look at all evidence old and new. That means they have to consider that fact that I am now service connected for everything they denied in 1994. This and CUE are the only way a Vet can go back and revisit an unappealed claim. I will keep you posted on the outcome.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp08/Files3/0824802.txt

This is short and sweet. The VET has Hep. He doesn’t know where it came from. More importantly, he knows where it didn’t come from. He states the risk factors, discounts the drug connection which he can , as a layperson, opine about. The VA examiner is unable to make an educated guess. Result? It is at least as likely than not that it was something in service. Simple. Do not feel obligated to help VA figure out a reason. Always remember. You are not a doctor. What do you know about it? Very little. They always choose the reason least likely to help you anyway.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp08/Files3/0824802.txt

Pretty simple deal. The VET had plenty of viable risk factors here but he ignored the ones he could make a medical nexus with and pursued the ones he couldn’t prove. The BVA Judge is being polite and not calling him a liar to his face. If this VET had actually roasted his face badly enough for a txfusion or Ringer’s Lactate, it would have been in his medrecs bigtime. I’m sure I’d remember that and tell the doc when I was going thru the last roundup and peckercheck. On the other hand, this guy could have made a case for the STDs. Maybe he was Navy and had one of those herking monsters on his chest. The biopsy showed he’d had at least thirty years which would easily fit into a nexus theory. But guess what? Forgot the nexus. OH YEAH. And then of course there’s that little matter of the old Cocaine use after service. That’s always a bummer when you realize that doctors write stuff down that you say. Just because you smoked it ain’t gonna fake out the VA wide receivers. A successful claim usually can be accomplished if you tell the truth. Or, If you tell the story the same exact way each time you tell it. The trouble with lying is it’s hard to remember what you lied about 5 years ago. You’ll notice that it gets lots of folks in trouble- even Presidents with a fantasy about blue dresses. Of course! That’s almost as funny as saying you were in Cambodia. Remember? As we motored up the Mekong River in our SWIFT boat, there was a big sign there that said “Welcome to Cambodia. Speed limit 10MPH! Leave no wake!” You remember that, don’t you?

http://www.va.gov/vetapp08/Files3/0825688.txt