mbl22885

I applied for and was approved for SMC L in 2015. I also applied for and was denied entry into the post 9/11 caregiver program in 2015. I'm aware of the 2 year statue of limitations, but I have circumstances that would allow for an argument that would allow for an argument that I wasn't aware until recently. I know that this is kind of light on details, but I'm not exactly sure what to put and how to proceed. Is a denial over entry into a caregiver program potential grounds for a FTCA lawsuit though?

https://cck-law.com/news/special-monthly-compensation-explained/ http://www.militarydisabilitymadeeasy.com/specialmonthlycompensation.html Both of the above claim a veteran is entitled to R1 when I tried looking in the m21 and the CFR, and I couldn’t find anything to back this up. Has anyone ever heard of someone qualifying for R1 based on the above or know if there’s something I’m missing in the m21 and CFR? Thank you in advance. PS I called the law firm and an attorney is supposed to call me back.

I currently have a 40% rating for Fibromyalgia that was initially rated as scheduler. All I know is that the QRT for my jurisdictional VARO did a full claims review on my file and the Fibromyalgia changed to permanent. The only reason I know this is an inquiry team member had called me about an unrelated issue and offhandedly mentioned it to me. I did an ebenefits chat session so as to preserve all of this in a pdf. I know this is to my benefit, but aren't they supposed to inform me of the change in some official big envelope way?

Decision turned out okay, but definitely not what I wanted. I've done everything to this point and the toll ends up effecting my family. Does anyone know of a good lawyer that has extensive experience when it comes to CUE and SMC?

Copy that. WWP was representing me, but they pulled out on me right at the end. Even had their National Service Director arguing with me via e-mail on a Friday night for 3 hours. I'm the son of a Vietnam Vet who had a VSO who is the son of a WW 2 Vet that had I don't even know what. Can't really let the WWP ditching me at the last second go, you know?

I have a weird situation involving a couple of CUE claims . Right now the claim is at preparation for notification, but when it was pending decision approval , all of a sudden I had two separate SMC L ratings. The two separate SMC L ratings are still showing with the claim at preparation for notification. Should I be getting really happy or is this some kind of glitch most likely?

My entire claims history is currently being reviewed by the St. Pete VARO Quality Review Team. Not quite sure what to make of that.

john999, The SAH/SHA grant is basically dependent on loss of OR loss of use in the extremities. I faced the same problem you did, which was/is the VA not recognizing pain,fatigue,weakness, etc as loss of use. Per the information contained in the picture above, the VA is required to recognize the symptoms we experience with our conditions as functional loss (i.e. loss of use.) If you still have the decision letter concerning your claim for a housing grant, I'd suggest you check it to make sure they didn't apply the above pictured information to your claim. If they didn't, you have a CUE claim. You have a CUE concerning the decision regarding your claim for a housing grant as it's a pretty safe bet that whoever made your determination did not consider the info above when making your decision. If you have a VSO, they're probably not going to be able, or willing, to help you. I'm not sure on how to properly file a CUE claim at the Regional Office level, but hopefully someone with experience with that will chime in. The Directors Office phone # for the St. Pete VARO is 727-319-5900. I would call them and tell them your situation, as well as that you understand according to "The provisions of 38 CFR 4.40 and 4.45 concerning functional loss due to pain, fatigue, weakness, or lack of endurance, incooordination, and flare-ups, as cited in Deluca v. Brown and Mitchell v. Shinseki" your housing grant claim was decided in error due to the rater of your housing grant not considering and applying the above under 38 CFR 4.59.

I ran into a number of problems related to recent claims filed and ended up reaching out to my RO. Someone from their inquiry team responded with the following. I've actually had interactions with him before (he is a former rater) and he was extremely helpful (including in this instance), and two claims showed up on ebenefits as reopens for an earlier effective date for SMC L and SHA. The claim for an earlier effective date for SMC L was cancelled on 09/27/17 and now shows as this on ebenefits . Beyond the cancellation, they changed the "disabilities claimed" to "Claim for P&T status." This is from another e-mail sent by the St. Pete VARO Inquiry Team member. As it was explained to me, in essence the CUE claim changed from an earlier effective date for SMC L to a request for permanent and total status, which makes no sense as I already am permanent and total regarding this disability, and as the correspondence from the VA Inquiry Team member shows, there was never a legal or valid CUE claim filed for anything related to my permanent and total status. I know the claim was cancelled due to speaking to a number of VA employees, to include someone from my VA District Office. I was able to send her the conversations with the St. Pete Inquiry Team member showing how CUEs were filed on my behalf by said St. Pete Inquiry Team member who has previously worked as a rater. She was as perplexed as I was, noted the situation was "weird," and commented on how if a RO decides to take an action like a cancellation they are required to provide a note/summary explaining the action to the District Office, which the St. Petersburg VARO had not done. She said she was sending them a note with a deadline of October 2nd to provide a response explaining the actions taken and that someone from the RO was to call me. She also noted that there was nothing in her system that she could see that showed the CUE claim as being one for an earlier effective date for SMC L. I have a VSO, but they haven proven to be less than effective when it comes to most things. I've actually received responses from the Regional Office before they have. I even had someone from the VSO District Office contact me yesterday to tell me this situation was "normal." They've repeatedly given me false information on a number of things as well. I'm only putting this here in hopes of avoiding the "What does your VSO say" or "You need to get a VSO" posts. Any advice? Previous experience with a similar issue?

Ebennies. I haven't really looked into va stuff hardcore in a while and I'm honestly beat down most days that I couldn't dedicate the time and energy to go hardcore again, but I knew about the vas duty to infer and the m-21 letter jumble it falls under. So I started ebenefits chats and iris inquiries seeking info and got the bs answers you'd expect. Then I'd save the conversations as PDF files and submit them as part of my claim and say "the va is obligated by law to assist veterans in claims and these are the resources we are provided." Eventually (and not easily) I found the updated m-21 word jumble for the vas duty to infer, and it was basically the same thing as before except they had removed "duty to infer" and replaced it with "issues within scope." And it's legalise, but it's legalise that's incredibly favorable for veterans. One of the main favorable things is that the va is supposed to give the available evidence a "sympathetic reading," and the VA hardly ever applies any of this. And the VSOS know this. It's why they tell vets who get to 100% scheduler to not try for more. So I raised hell with whoever I could think of. State senator, WWP and IAVA, Presidential Veteran complaint line, direct e-mail to the president, and so on.

I supplied them with a pdf copy of M21-1R, part III, subpart iv,6, B and said if it wasn't applied accordingly to my claim that I would immediately file a CUE. It's not a FDC either. And from my experience and what I've read on here, when they send you back for a c and p, they send you back to gathering of evidence.

Has anyone ever had this happen on ebenefits? To be clear; my claim was at pending decision approval yesterday, and now today my claim is at under review. I know at pending decision approval they can send it back for more evidence, but doesn't the claim usually go back to gathering of evidence?

Thank you for the reply. I just took a screen shot of ebenefits. There's no where on ebenefits where I can find something that directly says what the AA is for.The decision paperwork is in a box in a closet and I'd have to dig it out, but it definitely says it's for the PTSD. Like I said, I've got kids and my ratings reflect my state, so I'm not too keen on digging through that box to find the decision paperwork at the moment. I could provide the portion of the c and p exam (I have a PDF copy on my computer) that was used to grant permission for AA due to PTSD and I'll try to in a bit, but my SAH/SHA Grant application went from pending decision approval to complete this morning literally as I was on the phone with the national SAH agent help line to see if they could find anything out. There wasn't much they could offer in info, so I called my "representative" the WWP to see what they could do and they said it'd be 3-5 days before someone would contact me. Anybody have any ideas on how I can find out the decision? Called 8008271000 and the representative didn't even know what an SAH agent was.

Once again, you're wrong. Like I have the decision letter. I have a copy of the c and p exam that the approval was based on. "Or with such significant disabilities that..." Once again, leaglise. The PDF below pulls from multiple sources, including the CFR and M21. You should stop giving your opinion as fact. 38 CFR 3.350 has to do with SMC entitlement, not SAH/SHA. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.809 (b)Disability. The disability must be due to: (1) The loss or loss of use of both lower extremities, such as to preclude locomotion without the aid of braces, crutches, canes, or a wheelchair, (c)Preclude locomotion. This term means the necessity for regular and constant use of a wheelchair, braces, crutches or canes as a normal mode of locomotion although occasional locomotion by other methods may be possible. "Such as to" doesn't mean "absolutely must." "...although occasional locomotion by other methods may be possible" opens the door to a lot of things. And that's just looking at one of the possible criteria. SMC at the aid and attendance rate is payable when a veteran.docx.pdf

You're wrong.

I understand, I apologize if I came off as hostile. I'm all the things I'm rated as and I have a 3 and 1 year old I'm trying to be the best I can be for, so frayed doesn't even begin to explain it. I seriously thank you more than anything. I try to never assume anything, but when I do it's mostly negatively, so even if I do have a take on something like this that borders on positive, I immediately start to chip away at it. My experiences with the VA to this point have taught me that if they have even a microscopic reason to deny, they will. I'm drained right now, but eventually I'll read and comprehend to the best of my ability what you posted, and then If I have to, I'll apply it. And my claim will be better for it.

Thank you and I'll give updates. Tomorrow I'm going to talk to the SAH agent to see if she can find anything out. The WWP "represents" me, so I'm going to try the same with them if the SAH agent can't find out anything. If it's not favorable, I have further medical evidence to submit and I'll more clearly lay out my argument. My first child was born with A congenital defect that resulted in a 21 day stay in the NICU. There's no family history of it on either side, so it being hereditary is pretty much out the window. I would read him this poem and still do. "if you’re going to try, go all the way. otherwise, don’t even start. if you’re going to try, go all the way. this could mean losing girlfriends, wives, relatives, jobs and maybe your mind. go all the way. it could mean not eating for 3 or 4 days. it could mean freezing on a park bench. it could mean jail, it could mean derision, mockery, isolation. isolation is the gift, all the others are a test of your endurance, of how much you really want to do it. and you’ll do it despite rejection and the worst odds and it will be better than anything else you can imagine. if you’re going to try, go all the way. there is no other feeling like that. you will be alone with the gods and the nights will flame with fire. you will ride life straight to perfect laughter, its the only good fight there is."

No offense, but I think you're overlooking the legalise of the wording. "Loss of use" is not clearly defined as it is currently written. It doesn't say to what degree the "lose of use" has to be among other things. I essentially was told the same thing about qualifying for SMC L due to PTSD by various VA employees and VSOs, yet I fought and SMC L for my PTSD was granted. "With widespread musculoskeletal pain and tender points, with or without associated fatigue, sleep disturbance, stiffness, paresthesias, headache, irritable bowel symptoms, depression, anxiety, or Raynaud's-like symptoms:That are constant, or nearly so, and refractory to therapyNote: Widespread pain means pain in both the left and right sides of the body, that is both above and below the waist, and that affects both the axial skeleton (i.e., cervical spine, anterior chest, thoracic spine, or low back) and the extremities." Thank you for the reply though.

Thanks for the reply and the well wishes. The SAH agent handling my claim contacted me the day I applied and told me to not expect to hear anything for a while, so I was pretty taken back by the claim all of a sudden being at pending decision approval. I'm going to make contact with the agent on Monday and see if she can get an idea of what the proposed decision is. I'm kind of leaning towards the quick turnaround being a good thing, but my previous experience with the VBA and PTSD tells me "It's a denial. They don't think you'll push it further over fear of potentially losing benefits."

On 08/07/17 I applied for the housing grants and my claim is already at pending decision approval, so I'm not really sure what to make of the quick turnaround. I am rated 100% P and T with SMC L for PTSD, 40% for Fibromyalgia, 10% for left elbow lateral epicondylitis with painful motion of the forearm, 10% for left elbow lateral epicondylitis with painful motion of the elbow, and 0% for IBS. (Yep, as the blue shows, I'm copy and pasting from ebenefits) When I applied, I included this statement: "I had a compensation and pension exam for Fibromyalgia (among other issues) with a Dr. X on 08/12/2015. Dr. X findings from this exam led to a rating of 40% from the VBA. 40% is the highest value the VA will place on Fibromyalgia, despite as noted in Dr. X exam that my condition exhibits widespread musculoskeletal pain and tender points, with fatigue, sleep disturbance, stiffness, irritable bowel symptoms, depression, and anxiety that are constant, or nearly so, and refractory to therapy. As X exam explicitly states, "vet has daily pain in all large muscle groups limiting any exertional activiites." These large muscle groups most certainly include those found in the arms and legs. Also, as it is noted in the exam and VBA criteria for a 40% rating, the Fibromyalgia must be "refractory to therapy," which essentially means "incurable," so in other words, my Fibromyalgia is permanent." Any opinions on the quick turn around and what the possible reason is?

x