I am new to these forums. I am a type 2 and have a claim in for service connection based on the fact that I was stationed at Naval station Roosevelt Roads from 87 to 90 during which there was heavy use of pesticides daily morning and night in both my work area and housing. Pesticides have been proven to increase likelyhood of DM2 in people by over 60 percent. I was diagnosed within 1 year of discharge. So far I have been denied but now have it included on my appeal with the BVA for an increase and for adding that and sleep apnea with the sleep apnea being secondary to my PTSD which I am rated 70 percent on. I am currently 90 percent total and at nearly 56...not getting any better on any of my rated issues.
How is YOUR diabetes related to YOUR proven exposure to pesticides in that three year period?
How will you demonstrate that you have not been exposed to pesticides outside the service in the years before or since? Over a billion pounds of insecticides are used per year in the US in agricultural, lawn, garden, and homes.
Scientific studies can be used by medical professionals as support for their medical opinion bout your diabetes but the studies themselves are not evidence about a specific vet's claim.
How will you demonstrate that you have not been exposed to pesticides outside the service in the years before or since? Over a billion pounds of insecticides are used per year in the US in agricultural, lawn, garden, and homes.
Scientific studies can be used by medical professionals as support for their medical opinion bout your diabetes but the studies themselves are not evidence about a specific vet's claim.
When you say daily use morning and night that sounds like mosquito control. The two most common products used for this are resmethrin and sumithrin, neither of which has been found to be of significant risk to people otherwise jurisdictions all over the Southern U.S. would not be spraying them on city streets; however, one of them (don't remember which one) has been shown in some studies to possibly increase the risk for diabetes.
Given the limited support in the literature for your claim (assuming that you weren't actually involved in the preparation and spraying of the chemical on a daily basis) it will be necessary for your doctor to explain in some detail how he/she was able to exclude the more likely risk factors for diabetes in your specific situation.
For example, weight gain is one of the leading factors (if not the leading factor) with regard to type 2 diabetes. If you are not overweight your doctor can point this out and give your personal data and this would explain how weight gain was eliminated in your case. The doctor would need to do this with the other more likely causes of diabetes.
Cruiser
Given the limited support in the literature for your claim (assuming that you weren't actually involved in the preparation and spraying of the chemical on a daily basis) it will be necessary for your doctor to explain in some detail how he/she was able to exclude the more likely risk factors for diabetes in your specific situation.
For example, weight gain is one of the leading factors (if not the leading factor) with regard to type 2 diabetes. If you are not overweight your doctor can point this out and give your personal data and this would explain how weight gain was eliminated in your case. The doctor would need to do this with the other more likely causes of diabetes.
Cruiser
- levelheaded4ever952328952328
If you were diagnosed to a compensable degree within one year of discharged from active duty DMII is a presumptive condition under 38 CFR 3.309(a) chronic condition
Yes Ni k. However, the rules are...as likely as not.....that is how the decisions are supposed to be made. So if heavy pesticide use was occurring at Roosy Roads in those three years, on top of the fact that many toxic substances were stored there to include agent orange....and since being closed it has become a toxic cleanup site. I don't think I have any problem with that part of my evidence.Nick wrote: ↑Apr 03, 2020How is YOUR diabetes related to YOUR proven exposure to pesticides in that three year period?
How will you demonstrate that you have not been exposed to pesticides outside the service in the years before or since? Over a billion pounds of insecticides are used per year in the US in agricultural, lawn, garden, and homes.
Scientific studies can be used by medical professionals as support for their medical opinion bout your diabetes but the studies themselves are not evidence about a specific vet's claim.
Correct...which I was.
Dont know where you are getting your info cruiser, but weight gain is an old wives tale at this point. There are just as many of us thin as fat who have type 2 diabetes now. Which is definitely leading toward environmental or nutritional factors. One thing we all agree on..the US food pyramid is incorrect!Cruiser wrote: ↑Apr 03, 2020When you say daily use morning and night that sounds like mosquito control. The two most common products used for this are resmethrin and sumithrin, neither of which has been found to be of significant risk to people otherwise jurisdictions all over the Southern U.S. would not be spraying them on city streets; however, one of them (don't remember which one) has been shown in some studies to possibly increase the risk for diabetes.
Given the limited support in the literature for your claim (assuming that you weren't actually involved in the preparation and spraying of the chemical on a daily basis) it will be necessary for your doctor to explain in some detail how he/she was able to exclude the more likely risk factors for diabetes in your specific situation.
For example, weight gain is one of the leading factors (if not the leading factor) with regard to type 2 diabetes. If you are not overweight your doctor can point this out and give your personal data and this would explain how weight gain was eliminated in your case. The doctor would need to do this with the other more likely causes of diabetes.
Cruiser
Also, those particular pesticides / insecticides were not used in PR back in the late 80s when I was there.
I get my info from various sources.Asm610 wrote: ↑Apr 07, 2020Dont know where you are getting your info cruiser, but weight gain is an old wives tale at this point.
For example from Harvard: "Studies have shown that becoming overweight is a major risk factor in developing type 2 diabetes. Today, roughly 30 percent of overweight people have the disease, and 85 percent of diabetics are overweight."
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/ ... big-setup/
Mayo Clinic: "Exactly why this happens is unknown, although genetics and environmental factors, such as being overweight and inactive, seem to be contributing factors."
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-con ... c-20351193
WebMD: "Being overweight or obese can cause insulin resistance, especially if you carry your extra pounds around your middle."
https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/type-2-diabetes
And how about the opening sentence from this scientific paper: "The relationship between obesity and diabetes is of such interdependence that the term 'diabesity' has been coined."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16311223
I could keep posting similar sources of info all day, but it isn't worth my time. I suppose a better question would be where are you getting your info.
Obviously not every type 2 diabetic is obese, but the vast majority are so I don't think it qualifies as an "old wives tale" as you put it; however, if it is perhaps you need to contact Mayo Clinic, Harvard, and most other well regarded sources of medical information and clue them in on their erroneous thinking. They would probably appreciate you bringing them up to date.
Cruiser
Are you saying you were diagnosed to a compensable degree (10% or greater) within one year of discharged from active duty? If so, pesticide use is not a factor.
If pesticide use is your argument, one doctor writing an opinion for service connection isn't going to fly just because he says 'as likely as not' The medical opinion has to be well founded and the rater makes a decision based on all of the evidence in the clam file. The doctor has to give a complete medical rationale to have the statement "as likely" as not or "more than likely" had any value with the VA.
There is no assumption of service connection for service at Roosey Roads
If pesticide use is your argument, one doctor writing an opinion for service connection isn't going to fly just because he says 'as likely as not' The medical opinion has to be well founded and the rater makes a decision based on all of the evidence in the clam file. The doctor has to give a complete medical rationale to have the statement "as likely" as not or "more than likely" had any value with the VA.
There is no assumption of service connection for service at Roosey Roads
- Former Member14K5,05714K5,057
Obviously your not happy with the answers
you have received. Hmm.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
you have received. Hmm.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Couple of thoughts/questions:
1. How are you proving the pesticide use? Spraying morning and evening every day seems extreme.
2. Is the doctor's opinion based upon what you have told him or evidence of spraying.
3. Have you obtained evidence of what pesticide was used?
1. How are you proving the pesticide use? Spraying morning and evening every day seems extreme.
2. Is the doctor's opinion based upon what you have told him or evidence of spraying.
3. Have you obtained evidence of what pesticide was used?
I have obtained evidence of all the toxins that were in play at Roosevelt Roads. I was diagnosed as type 2 diabetic within 1 year of discharge from service. All this is in my current appeal. Whether or not it gets rated...is still up in the air. I just got 100 percent the 6th of this month based on a 50 percent rating for sleep apnea I received when I was already at 90%. My case had been remanded.
Some how, I feel like you are not comprehending.Asm610 wrote: ↑Apr 09, 2020I have obtained evidence of all the toxins that were in play at Roosevelt Roads. I was diagnosed as type 2 diabetic within 1 year of discharge from service. All this is in my current appeal. Whether or not it gets rated...is still up in the air. I just got 100 percent the 6th of this month based on a 50 percent rating for sleep apnea I received when I was already at 90%. My case had been remanded.BROVET wrote: ↑Apr 08, 2020Couple of thoughts/questions:
1. How are you proving the pesticide use? Spraying morning and evening every day seems extreme.
2. Is the doctor's opinion based upon what you have told him or evidence of spraying.
3. Have you obtained evidence of what pesticide was used?
First - Doesn't matter what was sprayed at Roosey Roads - what matters is you proving that you were exposed and convincing medical evidence that your diabetes was caused by that exposure.
Secondly -If your diabetes was not just diagnosed within a year of discharge but diagnosed to qualify for at least a 10% rating within a year, then the pesticide use is immaterial. So why did VBA deny your claim ?
I was exposed every day ...I lived in base housing and worked in weapons dept Magazine area both mainside and Vieques. Also worked AWSE shop over by AIMD . These things are documented in my record. I dont get what you're trying to say.....I Was DIAGNOSED TYPE 2 WITHIN 1 YEAR after my discharge. They denied me first time around. I now sent that to BVA and it was remanded...so waiting for new determination. They didnt even have my sleep apnea study in my jacket when they first denied me....I had to get a copy and send it to my attorney to ensure it was included after the remand. The VA is notoriously LAZY.Nick wrote: ↑Apr 09, 2020Some how, I feel like you are not comprehending.Asm610 wrote: ↑Apr 09, 2020I have obtained evidence of all the toxins that were in play at Roosevelt Roads. I was diagnosed as type 2 diabetic within 1 year of discharge from service. All this is in my current appeal. Whether or not it gets rated...is still up in the air. I just got 100 percent the 6th of this month based on a 50 percent rating for sleep apnea I received when I was already at 90%. My case had been remanded.BROVET wrote: ↑Apr 08, 2020Couple of thoughts/questions:
1. How are you proving the pesticide use? Spraying morning and evening every day seems extreme.
2. Is the doctor's opinion based upon what you have told him or evidence of spraying.
3. Have you obtained evidence of what pesticide was used?
First - Doesn't matter what was sprayed at Roosey Roads - what matters is you proving that you were exposed and convincing medical evidence that your diabetes was caused by that exposure.
Secondly -If your diabetes was not just diagnosed within a year of discharge but diagnosed to qualify for at least a 10% rating within a year, then the pesticide use is immaterial. So why did VBA deny your claim ?
They remanded it to the regional office! Apparently the regional office did not do proper C&Ps and failed to do proper medical records reviews.Nick wrote: ↑Apr 09, 2020Some how, I feel like you are not comprehending.Asm610 wrote: ↑Apr 09, 2020I have obtained evidence of all the toxins that were in play at Roosevelt Roads. I was diagnosed as type 2 diabetic within 1 year of discharge from service. All this is in my current appeal. Whether or not it gets rated...is still up in the air. I just got 100 percent the 6th of this month based on a 50 percent rating for sleep apnea I received when I was already at 90%. My case had been remanded.BROVET wrote: ↑Apr 08, 2020Couple of thoughts/questions:
1. How are you proving the pesticide use? Spraying morning and evening every day seems extreme.
2. Is the doctor's opinion based upon what you have told him or evidence of spraying.
3. Have you obtained evidence of what pesticide was used?
First - Doesn't matter what was sprayed at Roosey Roads - what matters is you proving that you were exposed and convincing medical evidence that your diabetes was caused by that exposure.
Secondly -If your diabetes was not just diagnosed within a year of discharge but diagnosed to qualify for at least a 10% rating within a year, then the pesticide use is immaterial. So why did VBA deny your claim ?
- Former Member14K5,05714K5,057
Some Lawyers are notoriously lazy.
Your comment is ridiculous.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Your comment is ridiculous.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How is my comment ridiculous? My records are with the VA! THEY have access to my military and civilian medical records. I have been treating with the VA since 2011. They conducted my sleep study, yet they didnt see in my jacket when I put in a claim for sleep apnea. These are supposed to be professionals. They are supposed to be validating information in claims.Banned User wrote: ↑Apr 09, 2020Some Lawyers are notoriously lazy.
Your comment is ridiculous.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What does the reason and bases section of the rating decision letter state as to the reason for the denials?
Then why didnt they see such simple stuff as my sleep study HAD ALREADY been conducted.
It says Entitlement for service connection for type II DIABETES mellitus is remanded.
VA TREATMENT RECORDS SHOW THE VETERAN has been diagnosed and treated for type II diabetes. Considering the veterans testimony and the medical evidence of record, he should be afforded a VA exam with opinion on this issue.
- Former Member14K5,05714K5,057
Generalization
“The VA is notoriously lazy.”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
“The VA is notoriously lazy.”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, the rating decision letter, not the BVA remand.Asm610 wrote: ↑Apr 09, 2020It says Entitlement for service connection for type II DIABETES mellitus is remanded.
VA TREATMENT RECORDS SHOW THE VETERAN has been diagnosed and treated for type II diabetes. Considering the veterans testimony and the medical evidence of record, he should be afforded a VA exam with opinion on this issue.
I thought you did not claim sleep apnea secondary to your PTSD?Asm610 wrote: ↑Apr 02, 2020I am new to these forums. I am a type 2 and have a claim in for service connection based on the fact that I was stationed at Naval station Roosevelt Roads from 87 to 90 during which there was heavy use of pesticides daily morning and night in both my work area and housing. Pesticides have been proven to increase likelyhood of DM2 in people by over 60 percent. I was diagnosed within 1 year of discharge. So far I have been denied but now have it included on my appeal with the BVA for an increase and for adding that and sleep apnea with the sleep apnea being secondary to my PTSD which I am rated 70 percent on. I am currently 90 percent total and at nearly 56...not getting any better on any of my rated issues.
Folks are asking for the denial reason - not the BVA remand. It is not sufficient to be diagnosed with diabetes 2 within one year - it has to be ratable at a 10% level. One can have Diabetes 2 within a year of discharge but if it not severe enough to be ratable at more than 0 percent within that year - it will not be service connected.
The regional office can not simply assume that you were exposed to these pesticides because you were stationed there nor will they assume that your diabetes 2 is caused by that exposure. Now the BVA is not constrained by the regulations in making their decision so you might get lucky.
The point that folks have been trying to make is for the benefit of other vets reading this. It isn't sufficient to say that a vet was stationed at Roosevelt Roads, pesticides were used at Roosevelt Roads, the vet has Diabetes now , so the diabetes was caused by pesticide exposure. Thousands of Vietnam vets went that route and it didn't fly until Congress changed the law to require VA to accept that any vet in Vietnam was exposed to the Agent Orange pesticide and that certain diseases were to be considered service connected.
Good luck - I'm out.
The regional office can not simply assume that you were exposed to these pesticides because you were stationed there nor will they assume that your diabetes 2 is caused by that exposure. Now the BVA is not constrained by the regulations in making their decision so you might get lucky.
The point that folks have been trying to make is for the benefit of other vets reading this. It isn't sufficient to say that a vet was stationed at Roosevelt Roads, pesticides were used at Roosevelt Roads, the vet has Diabetes now , so the diabetes was caused by pesticide exposure. Thousands of Vietnam vets went that route and it didn't fly until Congress changed the law to require VA to accept that any vet in Vietnam was exposed to the Agent Orange pesticide and that certain diseases were to be considered service connected.
Good luck - I'm out.
I didnt. I got it as a stand alone...50%EKco22 wrote: ↑Apr 09, 2020I thought you did not claim sleep apnea secondary to your PTSD?Asm610 wrote: ↑Apr 02, 2020I am new to these forums. I am a type 2 and have a claim in for service connection based on the fact that I was stationed at Naval station Roosevelt Roads from 87 to 90 during which there was heavy use of pesticides daily morning and night in both my work area and housing. Pesticides have been proven to increase likelyhood of DM2 in people by over 60 percent. I was diagnosed within 1 year of discharge. So far I have been denied but now have it included on my appeal with the BVA for an increase and for adding that and sleep apnea with the sleep apnea being secondary to my PTSD which I am rated 70 percent on. I am currently 90 percent total and at nearly 56...not getting any better on any of my rated issues.
EKco22 wrote: ↑Apr 09, 2020I thought you did not claim sleep apnea secondary to your PTSD?Asm610 wrote: ↑Apr 02, 2020I am new to these forums. I am a type 2 and have a claim in for service connection based on the fact that I was stationed at Naval station Roosevelt Roads from 87 to 90 during which there was heavy use of pesticides daily morning and night in both my work area and housing. Pesticides have been proven to increase likelyhood of DM2 in people by over 60 percent. I was diagnosed within 1 year of discharge. So far I have been denied but now have it included on my appeal with the BVA for an increase and for adding that and sleep apnea with the sleep apnea being secondary to my PTSD which I am rated 70 percent on. I am currently 90 percent total and at nearly 56...not getting any better on any of my rated issues.
- VAshots
+1
Just trying to figure out the disparity in what you stated.
Again, what did the reason and bases section of your rating decision letter state as to the reason for the denial for diabetes? We dont need to know what the remand states as that doesn't tell us much.
Again, what did the reason and bases section of your rating decision letter state as to the reason for the denial for diabetes? We dont need to know what the remand states as that doesn't tell us much.
No..I mistakenly wrote it that way. I have difficulty with memory. I am sorry for that. It's why sometimes it takes me a while to post. I wrote what I was trying not to say as you can see from my snapshots. My apnea is stand alone.
Everyone is trying to find out why your claim for service connection for diabetes was denied. You are telling us everything but that. What did the "Reasons and Bases" section of the Rating Decision say was the reason?
If you want to give us info from the remand then post the narrative section of the remand. That will describe what evidence was available and why the claim was denied.
Cruiser
If you want to give us info from the remand then post the narrative section of the remand. That will describe what evidence was available and why the claim was denied.
Cruiser
Cruiser,Cruiser wrote: ↑Apr 09, 2020Everyone is trying to find out why your claim for service connection for diabetes was denied. You are telling us everything but that. What did the "Reasons and Bases" section of the Rating Decision say was the reason?
If you want to give us info from the remand then post the narrative section of the remand. That will describe what evidence was available and why the claim was denied.
Cruiser
I am trying to find my original denial. Once I find it I will post what it says. I do know that service connection was denied in the original petition, but I do not have the paperwork in front of me.
You apparently have the remand since you have quoted from it. That should summarize the evidence in the file and the VARO decision. Post that discussion.Asm610 wrote: ↑Apr 10, 2020I am trying to find my original denial. Once I find it I will post what it says. I do know that service connection was denied in the original petition, but I do not have the paperwork in front of me.
Cruiser
Ok, since I cant locate the original claim from 2010, I will take pic of remand section of this claim and postCruiser wrote: ↑Apr 10, 2020You apparently have the remand since you have quoted from it. That should summarize the evidence in the file and the VARO decision. Post that discussion.Asm610 wrote: ↑Apr 10, 2020I am trying to find my original denial. Once I find it I will post what it says. I do know that service connection was denied in the original petition, but I do not have the paperwork in front of me.
Cruiser
Here are the snapshots of the remand which talks to the diabetes.
- Remand for DM2
![20200411_000403.jpg (3.06MiB)]()
- Remand for DM2 ptII
![20200411_000441.jpg (3.26MiB)]()
I hope this can help someone to prepare better than I was originally. When I originally filed..people tried to convince me I'd never get a rating for my diabetes. I still may not...but I've taken it all the way to the BVA and they are not ready to flat out deny based on current evidence and my testimony. They want further review. So while I may not win, hopefully I am breaking some new ground, and as each of us fight for our rights it may get a bit easier. DONT EVER GIVE UP! Even if I lose this...I will continue to try and help. It is my intention to go to school for law and then work to help veterans with their VA claims either through DAV or through some sort of Govt service for veterans.
Unless I'm just not figuring out how to look at what you posted from the remand, that doesn't help. All I'm seeing are the instructions that BVA gave to the VARO as to what they want done. Before they got to that point they should have summarized the case as presented by the VARO. That's what I need to see.
Like I said maybe I'm just not seeing it because all I'm seeing are two pages of narrative and it's just the instructions to the VARO.
Cruiser
Like I said maybe I'm just not seeing it because all I'm seeing are two pages of narrative and it's just the instructions to the VARO.
Cruiser