Theblaze

There are major and minor ratings for upper extremity radiculopathies. Are you saying that lower extremity radiculopathies are rated the same way? I don't see that in the rating schedule. Here is what I see for sciatica: Rating Sciatic nerve 8520 Paralysis of: Complete; the foot dangles and drops, no active movement possible of muscles below the knee, flexion of knee weakened or (very rarely) lost 80 Incomplete: Severe, with marked muscular atrophy 60 Moderately severe 40 Moderate 20 Mild 10 No distinction is made for major/minor.

Agree 100% I was SC for tinnitus even though my exit hearing test was better than my entrance hearing test. Tinnitus is what it is, ringing in the ears. And it can be completely independent of actual hearing loss.

CBaker, I am very curious to hear how the GI Bill helped you to pay for an IMO. Can you elaborate on that for us? I have GI Bill $$$ that I will never use and it would be wonderful if I could redirect it into something useful. Thanks! (Now that I think about it, I think what you probably did was use the BAH money they pay you while you are attending school)

Carlie, do you remember about how long it took to get a SOC from the R.O. when you elected to go to the BVA and filed the Form 9? The answer to that is important to us right now as we are trying to decide just how to get our new evidence looked at in the soonest way. Our new evidence is our best evidence and we don't want to wait 2-3 years for a DRO to say neigh (or yea).. We'd rather get their eyes on it right now for better or worse so we can get on to the BVA if need be. I'm confident that the BVA will award, though I hate to be confident!

Great story Berta, thanks for sharing! If a person elects to go to the BVA and skip the DRO de novo process, how long does it usually take for the R.O. to generate the SOC? I am thinking it is fairly quickly, in fact I am counting on that so we can get eyes on some new evidence sooner rather than years later. If they don't craft the SOC quickly, my plan may be a bad one.

Thanks for the reply! We did file the NOD 2 weeks ago asking for a DRO review. Our biggest issue is that we do not want to wait 2-3 years for the DRO to do the review of our new evidence. It almost looks like having our cake and eating it to if we file a Form 9 and go straight to the BVA. That gets us in line for a thorough look at the case, PLUS "forces" a look at the new evidence by the local R.O. RIGHT NOW since they have to write up a SOC explaining why all our evidence is not sufficient to grant the increase. And they just might grant the increase after seeing the new evidence. If not, they probably would not have granted it after a 2-3 year wait either. Am I missing something important here? Because this just seems like a great way to proceed.

My wife had a claim for increase denied in August 2013. We were planning to get a new DBQ filled out and file a FDC, but the DBQ took longer than we thought it would and now there is no time to get an FDC done before August 2014 when the one-year appeal window closes. Instead of filing for a DRO review and waiting 2-3 years for them to look at the DBQ, we are thinking of going straight to the BVA because this will make the local R.O. look at the DBQ now when the write the SOC. Is this a good way to get something looked at in a timely fashion? Plus, if the new DBQ isn't enough to grant the increase now, it for sure won't be enough to grant it in 2-3 years. We are just trying to get VA eyes on our DBQ now and avoid waiting years. Is this a good way to do it? Thanks!

Wow Berta, thanks for the great information in your post and I am glad that you eventually prevailed, I know that your road was a long and hard one! While I understand what a NOD does for you and that there is a one-year window to file it, it seems in some situations that it can be handled differently. For example, in the situation I am assisting with, the original decision was filed in Apr 2012, decided in Aug 2013. Evidence favorable to her exists throughout 2011-2013. Favorable DBQ (new and material) will be sent in with a FDC reconsideration in Feb 2014. Traditional advice is that if the reconsideration is not decided come Aug 2014 we will need to file the NOD. But why? According to 3.400 (q), if new and material evidence is received it is as if the previous decision had not been rendered. Say the reconsideration decision comes in Sept 2014 and denies the increase plus we did not file the NOD by the Aug 2014 deadline. If we file a NOD on the reconsideration, it seems we are still good because as part of the reconsideration new and material evidence was provided that gives us standing for an effective date to the beginning, if evidence supports that. I'm just not seeing the importance of meeting the first NOD deadline if N&M has been provided in the appeal window. But I may be misunderstanding part or all of this...

Veteran is 10% for lumbar strain. VA decision in Aug 2013 denied increase. There are numerous doctor exam reports from 2011-2013 that show limited ROMs that were apparently not considered useful because the decision to continue the 10% used the C&P exam exclusively which did not show limited ROM. We now have a DBQ from her doctor that documents the limited ROM problem. If used by a rater, this would dictate an increase. Question: Since we are within the one year appeal window, why would we pursue a NOD for this versus filing a reconsideration? The NOD will take much longer than an FDC and, if an increase is granted, an effective date prior to the claim file date is possible due to "new and material" evidence having been sent in prior to the one year anniversary of the original decision. (Would be nice if someone considered the other documentation of limited ROM as worthy so retro was possible). 3.400 (q) New and material evidence (3.156) other than service department records -- (1) Received within appeal period or prior to appellate decision. The effective date will be as though the former decision had not been rendered.

Well, this is a "reconsideration" within one year of a decision - denial. We want to file an FDC and hope it is done prior to August which is one year after the denial was done. Anything that would slow it down we want to avoid Tempted to just file for lumbar strain and let it go at that so it is a 1-issue FDC - which will hopefully go fast. The DBQ and medical evidence we have (and will send in) has the sciatica and the DDD, so maybe they will infer those. Just leaning towards a claim that goes as fast as humanly possible. A fast claim with the VA, that's funny right there!

Veteran is SC 10% for lumbar strain. Previously denied SC for sciatica due to "no current diagnosis". If she files an FDC for lumbar strain and supplies a DBQ that includes diagnoses of sciatica as well as lumbar DDD (from MRI), how would it be handled? Will they infer a sciatica claim? Might they change the SC condition from lumbar strain to DDD? I ask because we want to file a simple 1 issue FDC in the hopes that it will be handled quickly. Don't really want to file for lumbar strain and sciatica and DDD and make it look more complicated. Thanks!

FDC - Fully Developed Claim

Thanks everyone for the excellent information! I understand now, thanks!

T8r Bingo! Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for! Based on that wording however, I'm not so sure that it is not allowed in my situation. I mean, my DRO NOD is at St Pete. My FDC would be filed at St Pete. It seems that my claims folder should be at St Pete too and therefore the second part of that requirement after the word and (that they underlined in the FAST letter) would not be met. The claimant has an appeal pending at the time of receipt of the EZ form and the claims folder is not located at the home RO Seems like it would apply though if you had an appeal at the BVA AND your c-file was in D.C. meghp0405, I respect your opinion, can you elaborate on why you say that?

I think their stats are accurate and they are making headway, but there is still a huge backlog and long waits and unhappy vets. None of that will change anytime soon.