This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Jim Newton <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Dear Sir, Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:33 PM
New evidence was submitted to VRAB for them to review. Their response was to contradict themselves and totally disregard their own statements of the November 2000 decision that stated "Such a cause for vertigo is indicated as being caused by trauma involving a perforation of the tympanic membrane as noted in pages 2329 and 2330 of the Merck Manual". I supplied them with newly obtained evidence that I have already sent you - the attached medical report for the Penticton Hospital clearly showing - even with a diagram - the traumatic perforation of my tympanic membrane. While they accepted finally the activity was duty related, they quickly ignored their own statements and chose to point toward childhood events that had already been discounted - again by themselves - as they stated "It would appear that the tests completed as the Applicant was undergoing his subsequent pilot training also did not disclose the existence of ANY disability despite the rigorous nature of said tests. There is no indication of any problems for over 5 years after the 1998 fall until 1993." So in there own words they state the fall in 1998 and therefore anything prior to that did not cause my vertigo because that rigorous testing would have revealed it. Yet they just stated in their recent denial that childhood concussions and other vague dizziness when I had a head cold may have caused my vertigo. Enough is enough. I provided clear evidence to the point they made about the tympanic membrane - so clear that the evidence had a diagram showing clearly the perforation of my tympanic membrane. I also obtained a current day medical report which they say failed to link evidence - from the Bureau of Pension Advocates that current day report was a good idea as the link was already established by their own statements about the tympanic membrane and that was not the role of Dr Polyhronopoulos. Why they chose to grab onto unsubstantiated ideas of previous injury shows clearly the flawed nature of the unaccountable Veterans Review and Appeal Board. As I stated here: http://www.globalnational.com/GlobalNational/video/full+disclosure+on+soldiers+and+benefits/ video.html?v=2200069402&p=1&s=dd#video How do I respond to VAC and in particular VRAB when they change the rules every time as they see fit? I urge you to do the right thing and grant my claim without any further delay. Kindest Regards, Jim Newton