Be sure to get all five
VA Watchdog dot Org
RSS feeds --
Daily VA
News Flashes
House CVA
Veterans' News
Senate CVA
Veterans' News
VA Press
Releases
VSO Press
Releases
NOTE: Letters in my mailbag are reprinted
just as they come to me. Spelling and grammar are left as is and only
small corrections are made to improve readability, ensure anonymity or
delete expletives that may offend some readers. This is not legal advice.
You should always seek the advice of an attorney who is qualified in
Veterans' law before you make any decisions about your own benefits.
Jim;
I just started to put together my initial VA compensation claim. I was
exposed to TCE/PCE (trichloroethylene/perchloroethylene) at my former duty
station. I have stage 3 bladder cancer, a history of TIAs, hypertension,
elevated prolactin, and BPH. None of these illnesses are documented in my
service records and all occurred years after separation form the Marines.
Except for the elevated prolactin, all of the other illnesses can be
linked to exposure to TCE in the water. I understand the need for nexus
and will ask for a medical opinion from my doctors. I have no family
history of bladder cancer going back several generations, but I do have a
family history of hypertension and stroke. I’m unsure of whether I should
file a claim for the urinary conditions and forget about the TIAs and
hypertension (family history). Can you advise?
Article continues below:
"ASK
THE BUILDER" VIDEOS -- HOME IMPROVEMENT TIPS
(use left/right arrows in screen to view more videos)
You have a very steep hill to climb. The TCE/PCE issue is nationwide and
in many communities.
To prevail in a filing of a disability claim at the VA one must prove, to
a high degree of certainty, that the condition(s) were caused by or
aggravated by military service and that the conditions are disabling to a
degree that they are likely to interfere with gainful employment. Simply
having served in the past and then later in life developing a medical
condition is not enough to win a monetary benefits award.
To my knowledge, there is no accepted direct causative link between any
cancer and the TCE/PCE contamination. To prevail in a claim, you would be
required to submit scientific evidence from expert witnesses that directly
linked your condition to those chemicals. The witness would have to
certify that to his/her knowledge and belief, knowing that you were
exposed to carcinogenic chemicals, that it is more likely than not that
your condition was directly caused by said exposure.
Even before you submitted that evidence, you'd have to prove that you were
in fact exposed, the period of time you were exposed, the route of
exposure and the precise amount of exposure. Having been stationed in an
area that is known to have a ground water contaminant problem isn't always
enough to presume exposure.
I'm personally aware of only one kidney or bladder cancer case that won a
settlement and that was connected to Vietnam service and Agent Orange. A
prominent expert physician wrote a very good nexus letter that swayed the
minds of the Veterans Court and that finally won the day. That case was
years in the system before it was resolved. The other conditions you
mention...hypertension and BPH and elevated prolactin and TIA's are not
likely to be accepted as connected to exposure to those contaminants.
Hypertension and BPH are each part of the normal process of aging. Almost
every American male will develop each whether or not he has served in the
military. If the hypertension is controlled by medication, even were it to
be service connected, it would be rated as 0% (zero percent) and not
compensated. Hypertension is not often seen as disabling.
Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy (BPH) probably would not be found as a
disability as it is not disabling. The word "benign" is indicative of a
condition that is not harmful to you.
Elevated prolactin is an interesting finding, again not disabling and
noted as a part of the aging process in many males. Just having a
condition is not the same as having a disabling condition. This is
particularly true in conditions that are a normal and usual part of aging.
The TIA's are worrisome as precursors to a more serious brain event but
are often viewed as another part of aging and usually connected to
untreated hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, obesity and a history of
tobacco abuse. If you ever used tobacco and if you do not have a
documented record of hypertension or hypercholesterolemia in your active
military service, it's very unlikely that TIA's would be found as service
connected.
Unless the Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) left you with a residual defect
that would interfere with gainful employment, simply having had a TIA
would probably not be adjudicated as disabling. People recover completely
from a TIA event, thus the word "transient". If there is no residual
disability, there will not be any disability compensation. If a person
didn't recover completely from a TIA, the event is no longer a TIA, it is
recorded as a stroke.
Finally, you summed it up when you wrote; "None of these illnesses are
documented in my service records and all occurred years after separation
form the Marines."
In my opinion, it is highly unlikely that you have cause to file for a
service connection for VA disability compensation for any of your stated
conditions.
Jim,
It was nice to read that the U.S. Senate worked to get a tax rebate to
include disabled Veterans.
I am wondering what the Senate’s idea of a disabled Veteran is. Is a
Veteran below 100% considered disabled and will be getting a tax rebate.
The elderly on Social Security will be getting a tax rebate and I am happy
for them. I am wondering what the Senate’s idea of elderly is, 60, 65, 70,
etc?
Is a Veteran like me who is rated at 40% by the VA eligible for the tax
rebate? Is a person like me who is drawing SSD and is a young 61 eligible
for the tax rebate? Maybe a Veteran who is 40% by the VA and is drawing
SSD at the age of 61 will get a tax rebate, what do you think?
Is a Veteran who is receiving a Non Service Connected Pension (NSCP)
eligible to receive the tax rebate? If so, does that Veteran realize that
the VA will take back the amount of the tax rebate because the Veteran has
income besides the NSCP? Unless the tax rebate is an exception to the
rule.
I was receiving a NSCP when I got 10% for my hearing. The 10% went back
for like 6 months. So I got the back pay and the VA divided that amount by
12 and took the money out of my monthly NSCP payments. But then again is a
Veteran who is receiving NSCP considered a disabled Vet?
Now if a Veteran is considered service connected of any percent and
receiving Social Security or SSD will that Veteran receive two tax
rebates? That should not be a problem as those making over $75,000 will
receive some sort of tax rebate. Now if a Veteran is 100% service
connected and still able to work and is earning $75,001 will that Veteran
receive a tax rebate(s) and then what amount? I really, really, really
enjoy reading you column.
Reply;
To my thinking, this is more of the usual for Veterans; it's far too
little, way too late. A $300.00 rebate is spit in an ocean. This is pure,
unadulterated politics at its worst and any veteran who says "Thanks" is
beyond help. I've had a couple of Vets tell me what a great thing the
travel pay raise was and how we should be ever so grateful to our
superiors who bestowed this gift upon us. It's sad to see that happen.
If a politician wants to show gratitude to Veterans, a good place to begin
would be to fix the VBA so it consistently operates by its own laws. The
VHA was transformed from a national disgrace to a health care system that
provides much of America's best health care at a cost below that of any
other system. The Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs should
make history by remodeling the VBA to meet a similar standard of quality
and service. Anything less will not receive my applause or approval.
Jim;
I was awarded 10% for Tinnitus in 2002 due to acoustic trauma, but denied
the claim for hearing loss said no acoustic trauma for hearing loss. the
VSO at time told me if my hearing got worse to let him know and he would
refile the claim, he is no longer with the DAV. I don't if I should refile
or if I can. the DAV dosen't return my calls. Thank you.
Reply;
We at VAWatchdog are fortunate to have a friend who is an expert on
hearing issues. In keeping with our commitment to provide our Veteran
readers with the best services available, I've gotten in the habit of
forwarding requests about hearing to him as I believe he will have a lot
better answer than I will. This link will introduce you to Ed Ball.
We're working on preparing for our DRO hearing on the 19th. We called our
DAV VSO to give them a heads up that we would be coming to a hearing.
(This is about a Carcinoma secondary to Agent Orange, a "reconsideration
of the case".) The DAV VSO talked about it a little bit he told us that we
were just going to lose anyway, so why bother driving the 4 hours to get
there? That just makes me mad, I thought I should tell you.
Reply;
I'm familiar with your case and I'm aware that you have an excellent nexus
letter from a prominent physician that is clear that the cancer is more
likely than not caused by exposure to Agent Orange. Your experience with
DAV is not at all unusual. I'm sorry to report that I receive many
complaints like yours each week. You're well prepared to proceed and you
should. Even if you're denied at this hearing, you've laid very good
groundwork for an appeal to a higher authority by a qualified lawyer.
-------------------------
posted by Larry
Scott Founder and Editor
VA Watchdog dot Org
Don't forget to read all of today's VA
News Flashes (click here)
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are
making such materials available in an effort to advance understanding of
veterans' issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this
site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed an interest
in receiving the included information for educational purposes. For more
information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish
to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that
go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
