vlb-all-products

vlb-c-file-manual


  • Topics

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      16,005
    • Most Online
      3,604

    Newest Member
    Keli
    Joined
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      61,343
    • Total Posts
      395,626
  • Posts

    • Hey Andyman, the PCP opinion could work, but at the same time, I see two many ways for a va rater to get around it. A Independent Medical Expert Opinion along with the PCP opinion, does not give a va rater any wiggle room. Sure they could still deny it, but as soon as it reaches BVA it would be approve, because of the IMO. IMO probably could save you about 3-4 years (that's my opinion)
    • @john999 yes! I am on SSDI for bladder trauma
    • Yes,  they most certainly do rate for secondary conditions and you usually have to claim them formally and then provide proof of the connection to some already accepted condition.  If you can afford to wait this will eventually be good for your overall rating.  If you get 100% for the MST the other conditions may set you up for SMC "S" housebound.   I know it is hell to wait for deferred ratings.  If it take too long maybe you can prod them. I filed an NOD when they kept deferring a certain rating for an SMC claim.  I just got tired of waiting and filed a NOD on the basis of making me wait endlessly for my money.  There was no question about the rating only about the money which the VA was holding onto as long as possible.  Why they would defer your MST rating for a bladder rating is just for their purposes to make their jobs easier.   How serious is your bladder trauma? Would it be as high as 60% perhaps?
    • Andyman73, yes in my opinion this would be helpful. I would grab ALL medical notes appointments pertaining to this issue. Submit docs with your new claim for secondary.. Keep getting treatment & records from that tx as you go and it will all fall into place. Just my opinion..
    • HELLO ALL! LITTLE UPDATE.  JUST CHECKED EBENEFITS AND MY PTSD/MST IS DEFERRED BECAUSE THEY SCHEDULED A BLADDER TRAUMA C&P,  THEY ALREADY HAVE ALL INFO FROM PRIVATE PHYSICIANS.  DO THEY JUST WANT AN OPINION FROM A VA DOCTOR?  THEY RATED ME 30% FOR BOTH ANKLES AND TINNITUS.  THE BLADDER TRAUMA IS SECONDARY TO THE MST.  WHAT IS THE DEAL WITH SECONDARY CONDITIONS? DO THEY RATE YOU FOR THAT?  THIS IS ALL SO CONFUSING. 





Berta

Requesting The Va To Call Cue On Itself

40 posts in this topic

This is part of my recent CUE issue pending that can be used as a template:

Department of Veterans Affairs October 28,2012

Philadelphia Regional Office

PO Box 8079

Philadelphia ,Pa. 19101 Re: 310/3POST/CG

Nehmer decision dated January 17,2012

C # XX XXX XXX

and

Department of Veterans Affairs Original Agency of Jurisdiction

Regional Office

130 South Elmwood Avenue

Suite 601

Buffalo, N. Y. 14202 2478

REQUEST FOR VA TO CUE ITSELF REGARDING PART OF THEIR JANUARY 17th 2012 DECISION

I was advised by NVLSP to send my correspondence to both above VAROs to determine who holds jurisdiction over this request .

I respectfully request the VA to call a clear and unmistakable error on part of the above January 17,2012 decision from the Philadelphia VARO and to correct it.

This is a separate issue from my recent Section 1151,38 USC claim filed with the Buffalo VARO on September 21, 2012.

I state that the VA failed to apply the basic concepts and evidentary requirements of 38 USC, Chapter One, Part 4, Subpart A, under 4.6 et al, thus:

“Every element in any way affecting the probative value to be assigned to the evidence in each individual claim must be thoroughly and conscientiously studied by each member of the rating board in the light of the established policies of the Department of Veterans Affairs to the end that decisions will be equitable and just as contemplated by the requirements of the law. “

http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/4-6-evaluation-evidence-19774393

The VA's CUE lies within this statement on page 2 of the January 17th,2012 decision :

“ Entitlement to accrued benefits or cerebrovascular accident under 38 USC 1151 is granted with an evaluation of 100 percent effective August 9,1992 to March 1, 1993. Exhibit A

That is wrong based on all evidence in VA's possession at the time of the veteran's death.

Page One of Seven

The veteran, Rodney F. Simmons was totally and permanently disabled by his August 9,1992 Section 1151 CVA until his death on October 14, 1994. His”residuals”certainly did not alter the medical fact of his total and permanent disability from his Section1151 ,38 USC “ as if service connected” stroke on August 9,1992.

He was certainly housebound and that is not the issue here.

The VA's failure (CUE) to consider and evaluate the evidence VA had in their possession manifestly altered the outcome of the decision referred to above ,January 17,2012, to my detriment as the claimant and surviving spouse of the veteran, Rodney F. Simmons.

CUE regulations are found within 38 USC, 5109A.

The BVA within http://www.va.gov/vetapp/wraper_bva.asp?file=/vetapp08/Files5/0844495.txt, clearly

defines the same basis for my request that the VA call a clear and unmistakable error on itself due to an obvious violation of the evidentary requirements of basic VA case law.

As the BVA decision states ,

In part:“The veteran's assertion of CUE is based on VA's failure to

consider highly relevant medical evidence, that is, the RO

denied the existence of medical evidence that was clearly of

record at the time of the rating decision. The Board is

convinced that the RO committed error based on the record and

the law that existed at the time the decision was made and

had the error not been made, the outcome would have been.......

(I went on with some citations regarding BVA decisions as to the LEGAL issue.

I then enclosed Exhibits A through N and explained every exhibit to the VA in terms they could understand and made the point that each piece of evidence I enclosed warranted a 100% rating from Aug 1992 to Oct 1994.

SSDI records, Student Loan discharge, VA Neuro 100% P & T med recs, Letter from Acting Under Sec VA, R. Vogel 1994 letter to the veteran, claims judge, Agent Orange settlement fund, etc etc, the veteran's Voc Rehab records,FTCA stull, MRI, autopsy... real solid stuff.

all clearly stating or revealing medically that the veteran was 100% P & T from Aug 1992 to Oct 1994 due to his CVA which VA admitted they caused under 1151 and FTCA settlement. They owe me more cash.

Even if they loose most of that evidence , any piece could stand alone anyhow.

ALL of the evidence except for one reference (which can be checked) was in VA's possession at time of their CUE in the January 2012 award letter.

Now I dont have to finish that article on this maneuver.

To get VA to CUE itself requires

1. a legal error in a decision challenged DURING the appellate period (meaning the day of the decision and within the NOD timeframe)

2. a legal error that manifested an altered outcome to the claimant's detriment (ie improper retro amount)

3. A formal request that VA CUE the decision, supported by copies of probative legal/medical evidence that was in VA's Possession at time of the decision that the claimant is requesting themselves to CUE. This type of request must be made within the appellate period.

I might post ,my Dec 2011 CUE request too----I did that by Fax,IRIS, and phone with VA Central and don't have a lot of hard copy stuff on it. VA Central turned on that one in 3 weeks.

My 2005 CUE request started out with Fax stating "What the Hell is this," sent to the Director of the Buffalo VARO and IRIS complaint to VA Central and copy in email to my wimpy vet rep.

They (VA)moved on that fast too.

I think that one is documented 2 PCs ago.

If a veteran or surviving spouse like me has a solid leg to stand on, (with evidence of CUE criteria above) they then need to kick the VA in the A-- with their other foot ---during the appellate period. They need to watch the NOD deadline clock too.

VA keeps thousands in comp when vets don't challenge an erroneous decision ,even if it is an award letter.

Either with this maneuver or by preparing their NOD and appeal , shaped ....not for the RO these days, or for the black hole AMC,

but shaped instead, for the BVA.

Due to the critical backlog.

This doesn't stop the NOD clock!

If the VA ignores or farts around with this type of request,without a proper resolve, make sure you file a timely NOD,raising the same legal error issues.

Edited by Berta
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Thanks Berta. I have heard you discuss "VA cueing themselves" before, and I am glad you posted this. As usual, you are right on. I do agree with Basser, however, in that too many Vets file a "CUE" when a NOD would achieve a better result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for double posts I cant fix it. I live at high elevation and when a strong wind hits my satellite dish that happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How come we can't have you as a VA rep. instead of the jack a$$ we have. My hat off to you, you are a person to have on our side.

God Bless you

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry for double posts I cant fix it. I live at high elevation and when a strong wind hits my satellite dish that happens.

Berta,

I dumped the duplicative post and merged the two

topics into one.

Looks like you're doing great !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Berta

I re read what you posted, which, by the way is excellent and on target for you.

Two questions, tho:

1. Can you cite the regulation (fast letter, case law, CFR, etc) that says that the VA CUE'ing themselves must be done in the appeal period? (Your item #1 above). I ask this, not because I dispute what you say, but because I would consider the same. Does this work for both BVA and RO decisions? I seem to recall that you said it does indeed work for both BVA and RO decisions. Maybe this is one of those things that "this is how they do it" but it isnt written down anywhere.

2. Your point of " Even if they loose most of that evidence" is again, on target and consistent with my experiences. I think that 2008's shreddergate is back, in fact, it never really went away. I do think that sometimes, instead of shredding evidence they get rid of it by simply placing it in another Veterans file. From a Vets point of view, this amounts to the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now