BVA–Hep/Cirrhosis dilemma–pyramiding quandary

Posted on September 26, 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

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

BVA- Boldly Going Nowhere

Posted on September 26, 2011 by asknod

Is it just us, or do other Vets who read the BVA’s decisions get a feeling of deja vu after reading about, say,  two or three denials? We like to scour these documents in search of meaningful and useful information that can aid in the defense of our brothers’ and sisters’ claims.This is an ongoing process as we have discovered that no sooner do we discover a new wrinkle or viable defense, the VA is onto it like white on rice and erects yet a taller barrier to service connection. Please observe this case closely. There are several things we are going to point out that will prevent you, the Vet, from a guaranteed loss. You may not win at the RO (AOJ) level, but the ammo we provide here will certainly stand you in good stead at the BVA and Court level.

It is unfortunate that the Vet we are analyzing here is defended by a VSO who is definitely not at the helm of the NCC-1701. As such, this starship is headed for the wormhole known as denial. It is even sadder because a Vet is expecting a lot more from his SO than a disinterested hitchhiker oblivious to his surroundings. There is no evidence of the SO’s fingerprints anywhere here. One could rightfully characterize this as a VSO “ghost” defense. The American Legion might as well have been in the Neutral Zone because they had no input or judicial advice that would have mitigated for a remand. Just the fact that this gentleman had the clap inVietnamalone was a major risk factor. That, combined with the knowledge that he was in a theater known for its incredibly high incidences of hepatitis A and B (and now C), were never even presented as evidence in his favor. We all know the old saw about jetguns and FAST letters, but this too was remarkably absent.

The VA court system is fond of trotting out the Maxson v. Gober (Fed. Cir. 2000) decision which holds that a disease or injury that goes untreated or has no medically documented history for a lengthy period, mitigates against its being service connected. While Maxson has many instances of being applicable in disease processes such as arthritis, heart disease and the like, it has absolutely no place in hepatitis C litigation. HCV has been repeatedly described by even the VA as being a “stealth” disease that does not manifest itself for 25 to 35 years. Yet in decision after decision, the reader will find regular references to Maxson as if it were Gospel. Vets would do well to take note of this now before reading it in their denial from the BVA. Your VSO, lawyer or you, if you are defending yourself pro se, must address it in your substantive appeal and remove it from consideration before it is used against you. Defending your claim should never be a reactionary process to adverse evidence used against you to your detriment. This is one reason we harp continuously about obtaining your service medical records prior to filing to avoid being blindsided. Find and address the perceived negatives and use them to your advantage.

When you file your claim it should be a well-reasoned, logical document with an A=B, B=C and therefore, A=C format. You cannot legislate on the fly. I often hear the argument expressed by Vets we’ve helped that if their first theory or effort fails, they can always come back with a new claim and say” See? Here. Look at this. It must have been this”. Justice doesn’t work that way. Every time you fail to make your case with the VA, any new attempt is a re-open of the old claim. Resubmitting old evidence is prohibited insofar as being the prime reason for reopening. Each attempt must present new and material evidence that a fair minded person would see is new. The laws for reopening a claim now are much more liberal than they were 20 years ago.

We’ll cherry pick a few paragraphs from this decision and it will leave you scratching your head as to why this poor fellow ended up on the short end of the compensation stick:

 ISSUES

Entitlement to service connection for hepatitis B and hepatitis  C, to include as secondary to service-connected diabetes mellitus and herbicide exposure. 

This is what provokes the thought that this gentleman is “Boldly Going Nowhere”. This is the essence of his claim! This is what he is betting his money on. The AMLEG Service Officer has to know this is not going anywhere but the circular file. You cannot hang your hep on DM2 and Agent Orange. Everyone in the VSO world knows this. Or do they? It has been attempted tens of thousands of times with not one scintilla of success.

The record shows that the Veteran’s reported risk factors for  hepatitis C includes carrying wounded and bloodied soldiers and  high risk sexual practices.  VBA Letter 211B (98-110), November  30, 1998.  The Veteran’s service medical records show that in  July 1969 and August 1969, he experienced burning pain on  urination.  In May 1970, he suffered fever, chills, headaches,  and nausea.  He had been ill for two days and was unable to keep anything in his stomach.  He was taking the malaria pill.  There were no significant findings.  Later that month, he had urethral discharge, and was diagnosed with gonococci.

Really? Wow, nothing gets past them pecker checkers. And here, gentle reader, is the smoking gun, the Holy Grail of service connection was right there in his med recs. All he needed now was the Nexus letter.

On May 2000 VA examination, the Veteran reported that his  hepatitis C began in Vietnam.  He denied risk factors including  intravenous drug abuse, prostitute exposure, or blood  transfusions.

It really makes one contemplate the possibility than venereal disease can be transmitted by simply sitting on a contaminated toilet.  Additionally, aspiring claimants should note that the Vet has now put an M.D. after his name and diagnosed the onset of his HCV as beginning in RVN. That’s against the law in 48 states.CaliforniaandHawaiiare exempt. Should you the Vet be tempted to buy a toy stethoscope and play Dr. Kildare, keep in mind that one can only report the symptoms one can see, hear, smell, taste and determine by touch. If your skin is yellow (jaundiced), that would qualify. Testifying that the doctor told  one he had hep is hearsay and treated as such.

In October 2001, a fellow serviceman submitted a statement  recollecting that the Veteran was hospitalized towards the end of his tour of Vietnam with hepatitis at the 71stMedivacHospital in Pleiku.

More Doctors. This time they’re buddies. A useful statement would have said that he was hospitalized,his skin looked like orange juice, he had projectile vomit that would make Linda Blair proud and slept a lot.

On October 2001 VA examination, the Veteran reported that while in Vietnam he had some exposure to prostitutes…

When your story changes and you start recollecting differently from what you recollected earlier, VA will decide that you are no longer a credible historian and suddenly all your “recollections” are compromised and worthless.

The examiner stated that the Veteran’s diabetes did not cause his hepatitis B or C, or his cirrhosis, because diabetes did not cause those conditions.  The Veteran was subsequently service connected for diabetes mellitus secondary to herbicide exposure.

This is what we call the “Nick, nack, paddy whack, give the dog a bone” moment. VA has now given Mr. Vet a 20% rating for DM2 and a $200+/mo. check to see if he’ll fade in the night and go away gently. They have also explained medically how it is impossible to contract HCV from DM2. It doesn’t appear to have sunk in.

On April 2002 VA examination, the Veteran’s past medical history was summarized as hepatitis C, status post liver transplant, with recurrent abnormal liver function tests, and rule out current hepatitis C infection.  It was not clear how he was infected with hepatitis C.

Here VA is hoping that no one will notice the 800 lb. gorilla with HCV sitting on the living room sofa. Vets must realize that if they fail to point to a risk and say “I got it from Suzi Wong. I had a hundred missions over her and was only shot down once. That’s when it happened.”, then VA sure isn’t going to help you figure this out.

On May 2007 VA examination, the Veteran reported that the current effect of medication on his hepatitis was limited.  He reported that he realized he had hepatitis C when the cause of his cirrhosis was being investigated in 2000.  He reported that until 2000 he drank about five to six bottles of beer on a daily basis.  He was taking Sirolimus for his liver disease without significant side effects.  He denied any risk factors for contracting hepatitis.  He was status post TIPS surgery, with no more ascites.  After physically examining the Veteran and reviewing recent laboratory testing, the diagnosis was cirrhosis, status post liver transplant. 

Nothing like giving VA more ammo to deny you. Incidentally, this also bolsters the Catholic Church’s claims concerning Immaculate Conception. If one can get pregnant without having sex, it follows that one could get hep without any risk factors.

In an April 2008 addendum opinion to the May 2007 VA examination, the examiner reviewed the discrepancy in diagnosis between the private medical records indicating the cause of cirrhosis to be the hepatitis C virus, and the VA antibody test in May 2000 that was negative for hepatitis C virus.  After review of the claims file,  the examiner determined that there must have been a laboratory error on the part of the VA, and that the correct diagnosis had always been hepatitis C.  The examiner also concluded that it was not likely that the Veteran’s in-service gonococoal infection caused or aggravated his cirrhosis.  The examiner explained that while gonorrhea could cause hepatitis or perihepatitis, such a condition was very rare, especially in a male patient.  That being said, it was unlikely that the gonnorhea caused cirrhosis.

I’m at a loss to decide which is more tragic; the VA’s inability to correctly diagnose this poor guy or the VA examiner donning the M.D.’s white robe and opining that the clap isn’t responsible for the the hep. One will notice that the cirrhosis has now evolved into a separate entity, for all intents and purposes, and also is divorced from the hep.

In August 2008, a different VA examiner reviewed the file and  stated that there was no possibility that the Veteran’s in- service gonorrhea infection caused or aggravated his current  hepatitis C.  The examiner explained that there was only a remote relationship between hepatitis C and gonorrhea, which was the possibility that both could be spread through sexual relations.  It was, however, very rare that hepatitis C was spread through sexual relations.

I’ll bet the Veteran was measurably relieved to get that important point settled. So we now have two separate non- doctors who have weighed in with their opinions. Number one is blowing bubbles about gonorrhea causing cirrhosis which the Vet never claimed. The second expert proceeds to inform him that there’s absolutely no connection between gonorrhea and HCV. VA has more non-theories in the air than an experienced juggler at a Ringling Bros. circus. Noticeably, not one of these attempts to address his misguided theory about DM2. It’s just as well because this is going nowhere fast.

On February 2010 VA examination, the Veteran reported no  significant risk factors for his hepatitis, though the examiner  noted that the Veteran had been treated for various sexually  transmitted diseases in service.  That being so, the examiner  stated that contraction of hepatitis from sexual practices was  very rare and therefore not likely the cause of his current hepatitis.

So there you have it, Johnny. The birds and the bees get it on together with the stork dude, but this doesn’t cause hepatitis. We don’t know where you got it from and we really don’t want to know. We know you didn’t get it in service because clap doesn’t cause hep and that’s the important point. Now, was there anything else we can do for you? Aspirin? A cab? Liver #3?

The first clinical evidence of record of a diagnosis of hepatitis C is dated in May 1998, approximately 28 years after the Veteran’s separation from service.  In view of the lengthy period without treatment, there is no evidence of a continuity of treatment, and that weighs heavily against the claim.  Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2000).  Thus, absent any indication that the Veteran was diagnosed with hepatitis C while in service, and because his hepatitis C was first diagnosed many years after service and has not been related to his service, the Board finds that service connection for hepatitis C is not warranted on a direct basis.

Pretty slippery, huh? Gosh, buddy. You didn’t go to a doctor 24 years ago and get tested for Hep c. Oh, yeah. We forgot. There was no testing for it until 92. So, you didn’t go in 92 and that was like a way long time ago, dude. Like, you didn’t go for 8 years after the test was available. Dude, you are like soooo screwed. What were you thinking?

And last but not least, the final word:

The examination reports show that although there was a risk factor with regard to risky sexual practices, as stated by the Veteran and documented in his service records in the form of urinary infections, the likelihood that those practices would result in the transmission of hepatitis C were found to be very slim and unlikely.  The VA examiner did not find that it was at least as likely as not that hepatitis C was related to the Veteran’s service.

The Oracle at Delphi has now spoken. It’s official. Game, set and match. AMLEG and the Vet have presented no evidence in their defense. In the absence of a nexus letter from the Veteran’s doctor, the VA has thoughtfully supplied not one, but three. In addition, the VA has hung this man out to dry for 10 years and blithely characterized Gonorrhea as nothing more than a “urinary infection”!  AMLEG has likewise foolishly encouraged him to fight the good fight and has offered to hold his hat and coat. The BVA  remanded this several times to develop more info., so it cannot be said that they didn’t give him every opportunity to be heard. This gives new meaning to the phrase”You have the right to remain stupid.”

Unfortunately, there isn’t much here to appeal other than the Maxson v. Gober misogynist abortion. To win, you have to have a plan. You have to have assets (not financial ones). Your claim has to have merit. But most importantly, you cannot involve anyone with it who does not have a vested interest in winning. Depending on them for support can be fatal. This case could easily have been won, but failed for lack of effort, knowledge and discipline. Don’t let yours suffer the same fate.

This Vet filed in the underwater city of New Orleans (Nemoland). If you know this guy or a Service Officer at the NO AMLEG, find him and tell him what we discussed here. He can win. He just needs a coach because his SO sure was a few dilithium crystals short of what Scotty considers adequate to go anywhere-boldly or not.

Here is the link to the decision:

http://www4.va.gov/vetapp10/files4/1030693.tx

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

BVA–Win-Tiger Team Remand Aug 5, 2003

Posted on September 26, 2011 by asknod

 In the beginning, we had such high hopes…

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS CLEVELAND REGIONAL OFFICE 
Tiger Team Remand Unit P.O. Box 998020 Cleveland, Ohio 44199-8020
Rating Decision August 5, 2003

INTRODUCTION

The records reflect that the veteran served during the Vietnam Era in the Army from August 25, 1967 to April 17, 1971. The Board of Veterans Appeals remanded the case on December 27,2001; and based upon a review of the evidence listed below, the following decision(s) were made in the claim. .

DECISION
Service-connection for hepatitis C is granted with an evaluation of 10 percent effective April 17,2000. .

EVIDENCE
. VA Fonn 21-526, Application for Compensation and/or Pension received April 12, 2OO2′


Page2

  • .Service Medical Records from the National Personnel Records Center
    Outpatient treatment reports from the VA Medical Center, Buffalo for the period of August 1999 through October 2000
    Medical Records from 1996 through 1999 DD Form 214 ,
    Article submitted entitled “Risk Factors for Hepatitis C Virus Infection in United States Blood Donors”,
    Statement received from the Veteran on January 29,2001 Board of Veterans Appeals’ Order dated December 27,2001
    VA Form 4138, Statement in Support of a Claim received January 8, 2002 with attachment .
    Medical Records .from for’ the period of May 30, 1995 through March 22, 2000
    Response from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) dated August 2, 2002 .
    VA Examination dated June 5, 2003 and Hospital for the period of ‘

……….REASONS FOR DECISION

Service-connection for hepatitis C.

Service-connection for hepatitis C has been established as directly related to military
service. -This decision is based upon the VA examiner’s opinion dated June 5,2003
coupled with the supporting evidence of articles relative to jet inoculations submitted by’, .
the veteran. ,Specifically, the V A examiner provided a causal relationship finding that the
veteran’s hepatitis C currently diagnosed was incurred in service as a result of the jet
inoculations given therein. Moreover, the examiner relied upon these articles which note
that due to cross-contamination, anyone who had inoculations with Jet injectors were at
risk for having hepatitis C and should be tested.'” Further, the veteran denied having
incurred any of the known risk factors subsequent to service, such as N drug use; blood
transfusions; tattoos; surgeries, or needle sticks. Accordingly, service-connection is
granted as a result of the evidence of record. ‘An evaluation of 10 percent is assigned from
April 17, 2000. This date is being used, because it is the date of the veteran’s original claim
for service-connection that was subsequently denied, and timely appealed
to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. .

An evaluation of 10 percent is assigned for chronic liver disease without cirrhosis; but with
intermittent fatigue, malaise, and anorexia, or; incapacitating episodes (with . symptoms
such as fatigue, malaise, nausea, vomi1ing, anorexia, arthralgia, and right upper quadrant
pain) having a total duration of at least one week, but less than two weeks, during the past
12-monthperiod.

Page 3

In this case, the most recent VA opinion of June 2003 was merely a review of records
contained in the claims file, and thus, no objective or subjective evidence was obtained
that could be used for evaluation purposes. However, the medical records o coupled with
the outpatient treatment records from the V A Medical Center, Buffalo do provide such
evidence. Specifically, these records demonstrate that prior to inception of the claim, the
veteran was placed on Interferon, but due to complications of the medication, it was
.ceased. . Subsequently, between 1998 and 1999, he remained asymptomatic for the
disease. However, right around inception of this claim in 2000; the. notes indicate that the
veteran’s viral load started to rise. Subsequently, he was placed on Infergen, 15
mg three times per week. A note of September 2000, indicates that, at that time, the
veteran complained of incurring flu-like symptoms for a day after the shot is given. Also,
between March 2000 and September 2000, he had lost 20 pounds of weight due to these
problems. Accordingly, based upon these complaints, an evaluation
of 10 percent is assigned. .

A higher evaluation of 20 percent is not warranted at this time, because there has been no
evidence submitted demonstrating that the veteran suffers from chronic liver disease
without cirrhosis, but with daily fatigue malaise and anorexia (without weight loss C?r .
hepatomegaly), requiring dietary restriction or continuous medication, or; incapacitating
episodes (with symptoms such as fatigue; malaise, nausea, vomiting, anorexia, art a1gia,
and right upper quadrant pain) having a total duration of at least two weeks, but less than
four weeks, during the past 12-month period.

REFERENCES: .

Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Pensions, Bonuses and Veterans’ Relief
contains the regulations of the Department of Veterans Affairs which govern entitlement
to all veteran benefits. For additional information regarding applicable laws and .
regulations, please consult your local library, or visit us at our web site, http://www.va.gov.

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

BVA–Win- 2008- Materials used to clean guns

Posted on September 26, 2011 by asknod

2008’s first Jet gun win. It’s a very narrow ruling. It was very well presented. The Veteran( a woman) was very articulate and the Board Member, VLJ Shane Durkin described it thus: ” The Board finds her a credible witness”. NOD says this is a fluke. It unfortunately does not set precedent. You may use it as a template for your own claim, but be aware that your results may differ from this. Every claim is unique as are the facts surrounding it. Printed forewith for Veteran perusal:

http://www.va.gov/vetapp08/Files2/0814816.txt

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

BVA– Another win – Could be jetguns

Posted on September 26, 2011 by asknod

The operable words are always” as likely as not” or something similar. When you win, it really makes no difference except to those of you VETS who are still on the other side of the Creek with defective paddles. Every circumstance is different…

http://www.va.gov/vetapp08/Files4/0832288.txt

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

BVA–Win-2005-result of immunizations in service

Posted on September 26, 2011 by asknod

Hepatitis C is a result of receiving immunizations in service by means of a multi-use jet gun injector.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp05/Files5/0531165.txt

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

BVA– Win-2004 “as likely as not”

Posted on September 26, 2011 by asknod

One of the first wins…

http://www.va.gov/vetapp04/Files2/0412360.txt

Here’s another a year later:

http://www.va.gov/vetapp05/files5/0531165.txt

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

BVA–Win…BUT Pension, NOT Compensation

Posted on September 26, 2011 by asknod

Here’s a decision that grants the Vet SC for Hepatitis with nothing more than jetguns as a risk factor. You say: Hey! All well and good. Then the Idiots at Military Order of the Purple Heart(MOPH) don’t take the next obvious step and link all his other obvious hep illnesses as secondary to the Hepatitis. This is financial suicide for the Vet because he can now ONLY collect the VA pension instead of VA Compensation AND SSD. The majority of this Vet’s symptoms are attributable to Hepatitis. It’s a no brainer. He’s unemployable and no one disputes that. The hangup is that the BVA and the VSO collude, come up with a sub par Hepatitis rating that doesn’t encompass his true disabilities, and then give this VET the bum’s rush to Pension @ 100%. That’s a weak $3 K/mo.(or $36 K/yr.) assuming he’s married w/o children. If he were getting it as Comp., he’d probably get another $1500.00 (SSD)on top and be in the $54 K/yr.tax free bracket. Conspiracy? Who knows? Call it the Bracket Racket. I used the MOPH chuckleheads my last time out and they said I’d never get Hepatitis and especially not my PCT- ever. Of course , they also said if I had any tattoos I was sunk and we know that advice is bogus. I finally gave THEM the Bum’s Rush and won without all their valuable help. This advice is not for everyone- mind you. There are some very sharp VSOs out there who are invaluable to your legal strategy. I just haven’t been lucky enough to meet one yet in my 20 year quest for Justice. This is also another one of those “be careful what you ask for” claims. The Vet/VSO specifically asked for a “non-service connected” pension instead of a Total Disability for Individual Unemployability(TDIU). There is a big difference here- about $18,000.00 a year difference and the totally tax free nature of a compensation rating with SSD. I personally think he could have made his case for TDIU. That is not chump change. Be careful Veterans!

http://www.va.gov/vetapp08/Files5/0837526.txt

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

BVA–2007— HCV & PCT 2ndary to HCV

Posted on September 26, 2011 by asknod

Finally, VA and BVA are starting to see that PCT (Porphyria Cutanea Tarda) is present in a lot of HCV cases. So is Cryoglobulinemia, DM2, Fibromyalgia, Chronic Pain Syndrome, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome(sore throat forever, anyone?), peripheral neuropathy, and about 10 others I forgot. Check this out for 2007. Clarksburg, W. V. I have seen several good HCV decisions come out of there on appeal and get SC. Vietnam Veterans of America is perhaps one of the Better VSOs around in my book. Use them if you can for your claims. Avoid the rest. But always supervise your SO. They aren’t perfect- don’t expect them to be. That’s why you’re here reading this anyway, isn’t it? To be prepared like a boyscout? It’s a Jetgun claim of sorts, for lack of a better risk factor. Treat it like that.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp07/Files3/0724747.txt

You will probably recognize VLJ Cheryl Mason’s name(she is mentioned in several other decisions here in ASK NOD). She has made some smart, clean, well thought out decisions on Hep C with the Vet getting SC where it was clear that he /she deserved it. She has never resorted to tortured logic that ends up with a train wreck of phrases that contain the “it is at least as not likely as not that the hepatitis in question is not related to the hepatitis we are talking about here.” This decision is basically a ” Well. Its clearly obvious we don’t know what caused it, so it could be Jetguns. There doesn’t appear to be any other big, bite you in the ass reason.” Thank you Judge Mason, on behalf of thousands of HCV positive Vets. We wish we could have you as our Judge every time. $100 says she isn’t a Blonde. As we all know, peroxide causes brain damage…

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

BVA–2005–3 NEXI AND AN APPEAL

Posted on September 26, 2011 by asknod

This was handed to me by our Fearless Leader Harry. Ask Nod is a group enterprise and everyone is encouraged to submit helpful info. Harry is perennially up to the task in that regard. He pointed out that those helpful young men down at the VARO in Denver tried unsuccessfully to imply that this Veteran was an intravenous drug abuser with a long history of such. Unfortunately, the RO didn’t have any supporting evidence for this shocking accusation and the ploy failed. How many attacks on Vets’ morals succeed? Who knows. The good news is the Vet won this one. Nothing makes us happier than to publish these stories. Herewith, for the Veteran reader’s edification, another success story involving jetguns:

http://www.va.gov/vetapp05/Files3/0518599.txt

Sometimes, after shooting themselves repeatedly in the foot, they manage to get it right. Having not one, but 3 doctors testify on his behalf, VLJ James L. March ruled in favor of the Vet. He probably didn’t get a Christmas bonus that year (2005) and was warned to “knock it off” by his co-judges around the water cooler in the hallway because he was giving them all a bad name. I apologize. That is just conjecture on my part, not fact. I guess what I find amazing is that Government employees lied and twisted the facts to impugn the Veteran’s credibility and medical history and were not arrested and imprisoned. Since I don’t have a subscription to VA CONSPIRACY magazine, I always find it amazing when I discover things like this. Am I naive? Naw.

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