agcgonz

You still have some time to go with the Notice of Dissagreement route. It's easier than A CUE.. My suggestion is to include all the evidence as if it was a CUE in addition to NOD issues. If they deny submit a formal appeal to BVA. They will take final look if they disagree you they will issue a SSOC as part of your file to the BVA. Finally I'm not sure they will accept a CUE and the NOD at the same time for the same disablbility-- I belive they will dismisss the CUE as premature until the NOD is resolved. good luck.

You indicated you are on TDIU. Did they change you're status to 70% P&T and kept you on TDIU? If, TDIU is kept w the 70% this is still on semi-temporary status. If they determine you are no longer entitled by their annual verification of your Social Security Administration's annual wage earned statement.. If you earned above a certain amount, then technically they could revoke it. If the P&T is only for your 70% PTSD . That's only portion is permanent and you are correct. No periodic reevaluations of this disability Once you obtained 100% combine P&T rating they will eliminated the TDIU determination. Then you 'll be granted all the other benefits you're entitled as 100% P&T( including any additional benefits grated by the state).

If you submitted the supplement a year after the date of the original denial from RD, and you didn't submit a NOD , they are correct. The VARO will consider it a closed claim.. Reason not summitted theb NOD within the statuary time limit. The only option you have now, is to reopen the original date by submitting a Clear Unmistakable Error (CUE) motion. A Clear and Unmistakable Error in a past VA decision is a collateral attack. CUE claims involve three specific facets: 1. A final decision from VARO or the BVA that was never appealed. 2. It involves an error as to the application of the fact or law that existed when the CUE was made. 3. It manifestly would change the outcome of the past claim if successful. Often a CUE is the only way to recover lost retroactive monies in a decision that was never appealed. Once it is submitted The VARO can grant or denial it. Most are denied. If denied they will issue a SOC. you have another year from that date to submit an appeal on Form 9 to a higher court, in this case to the BVA for judication. The BVA can grant, denied, or remand it back to the VARO (most common outcome if not outright denied ). If denied you can make a motion to reconsider, If the court upholds the BVA’s ruling, you can appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and then to the Supreme Court, if necessary. see https://va.org/filing-an-appeal-of-a-va-decision/#:~:text=Filing an Appeal of a,to the Federal Court System. for the process Otherwise the new date granting the 70% will stand...

63Charlie Sorry, I'm not the same Pvt Gonzalez.

Berta There are several CUEs in the 2011 Decision.- 1. EAI is just one error, 2. RO determined my wife lay statement as not creditable when she describes my employment and current history, 3. the most outrageous is they ignored or misrepresented my VA Psychologist and Psychiatric medical evidence and treatment records. as well as the Dr completing the C&P. I have not been gainfully employed since 2009. In 2013 my VA Dr. put me on indefinite Medical Leave for PTSD. I was then granted TDIU in 2013. Just last month I was granted PT with EED to 2014. I will cite the references you suggest.

Yes but I didn't see my employment history I submitted and the SS statement at the time.

Thanks Bertha. Attached is my draft. in the meantime I'll search for the template you mentioned. CUE RD 2011 Draft.pdf

I have been fighting the St. Petersburg RO with my PTSD for six years now. I failed to submit a NOD at the time (2010) denying TDIU.. After reading several of fellow vets on this board i see I need to now to make a motion of CUE. As a result I have drafted a motion using the advice from Bertha, Tbird and others experts. I'll like to have the team review what i drafted so far for advice and counsel. If there is anyone that agrees I'll post a copy for all to comments.

Hi Bob. Go to the VA or to the closest Vet center. they have a free programs for PTSD patients. They can also do the PTSD or anxiety workup. If its service connected submit a claim to the VA. Anyway hang in there bud. everyone is hear to listen--I too have these feelings its not worth it anymore--- then I read some of the others post and I'm ok at least today.

ruffryder24 Hang in there. talk to your Doc when you can and you should be OK. Missing an appointment should not affect you or your claim----with the exception of the C&P appointment. Don't miss that one. It's key to your claim rating determination. Good luck and try to stay sober.....

Hey John999 I wish you the best. thxs again

im so sorry, patrick. my prayers go out to you and family. agc

I wish I could move as well. Anyway this is my 4th occurance- 2 while in service and 2 since leaving the service, i continue to refuse to go to the VA inpatient locked ward.....so far been lucky with my VA Dr. he's is not pushing it either. --- He order an MRI to rule out TBI as a cause. Either way they will need to explain why they decised not to include my Civ and the VA DRs evaluation in the determination. They dismissed any and all medical evidence that's favors my claim. Once I win--- then I'm sending all this "ssssH...." to my dear friend Gen Shinseki (RET) w cc to my congressman. my hope they can fix this systemic problem within St Pete. RO. Happy Holidays and New Year. May we all get a fair and just decision.......

Submitted my NoD and my VA form 9. The rating official made the decision on the GAF and dismissed any all evidence that was favorable for me. In the NoD I wrote: …”.the evidence is clear the rating of 70 percent in the 2013 Rating Decision is in error. The rating official erred by only using the GAF 52 in making the final disability determination. There is no question that the GAF score and interpretations of the score are important considerations in rating a psychiatric disability. See Richard v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 266, 267 (1996); Carpenter v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 240 (1995). However, the GAF score, like an examiner's assessment of the severity of a condition at the time of a particular evaluation, is not altogether dispositive or determinative of the evaluation to be assigned; rather, the GAF score must be considered in light of the actual symptoms of the Veteran's disorder, which provide the primary basis for the rating to be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.126(a); In evaluating mental disorders such as PTSD and Bipolar I Disorder, the rating official must consider all the evidence of record, determine the nature of the appellant's disability picture, and then look to the list of symptoms outlined in the diagnostic criteria as examples that can provide guidance in estimating the severity of the appellant's condition. See Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436, 442 (2002). More recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that evaluation under § 4.130 is "symptom-driven," meaning that "symptomatology should be the fact-finder's primary focus (emphasis added) when deciding entitlement to a given disability rating" under that regulation. Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 116, 117 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In the context of determining whether a 100 percent disability evaluation is warranted, § 4.130 requires "not only the presence of certain symptoms [,] but also that those symptoms have caused occupational and social impairment in most of the referenced areas [;]" thus, it "requires an ultimate factual conclusion as to the veteran's level of impairment in 'most areas.'" Id. at 117, 118 (quoting 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411). A rating official determination of the appropriate degree of disability under the rating code is a finding of fact subject to the "clearly erroneous" standard of review. 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a) (4); see Smallwood v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 93, 97 (1997). Therefore, the evaluation by Dr. Li (his primary provider for the last 2-3 years) was completed closest to the date of his “4th” occurrence than the C&P’s examination 11 months later. Therefore, the Veteran claims the C&P does not provide any probative value of evidence in this case. After the review all the evidence of record dating to 1987, it must be clear to the Board of the Veteran's functional capacity, on January 2013 meets the criteria at the 100% permanent rating. The VA regulations state that "where there is a question as to which of two rating criteria shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for that rating 38 C.F.R. § 4.7 (2012). The regulations also caution that "it is not expected . . . that all cases will show all the findings specified in the [applicable DC]." 38 C.F.R. § 4.21 (2012). Moreover, in Mauerhan v. Principi, the Court held that the symptoms listed in DC are "not intended to constitute an exhaustive list, but rather are to serve as examples of the type and degree of symptoms, or their effects, that would justify a particular rating." 16 Vet. App. 436, 442 (2006). Instead, the rating official is required to "consider all symptoms of a claimant's condition that affect the level of occupational and social impairment," not just those listed in the regulation.” on stanby to see the SoC from RO if Denied---next step to VBA via VTC.