vlb-all-products

vlb-c-file-manual


  • Topics

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      16,014
    • Most Online
      3,604

    Newest Member
    SgtDan_USAF
    Joined
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      61,353
    • Total Posts
      395,712
  • Posts

    • You should get housebound, per Howell.  You should read it.  https://asknod.org/2014/08/25/cavc-howell-v-nicholson-what-smc-s-really-says/
    • This is a must listen. Dr Cantrell is a very good advocate for all things PTSD .     http://www.blogtalkradio.com/haditcom/2016/08/26/bridget-c-cantrell-phd-is-an-award-winning-post-traumatic-stress-expert
    • I agree with J basser, If you were rated 90% IU  getting paid at the 100%  and also 70% for Depression =Meets the Criteria for SMC-S 1 Or if your were IU & Later got 70% Depression They should have gave you the statutory SMC-S- 1 H.B. Depression is a mental rating!  So it would be separate. jmo ........................Buck
    • Housebound is covered by the SMC level of S. Now SMC S can be achieved two ways. The first way is to be physically housebound. (A Doc must say you are) The second way to get it is to have a disability rated as Total and Have another or combination of disabilities totaling 60 percent. That is called Statutory Housebound.  Don't get confuses as the Regs say the word total and the VA likes to use the 100 percent issue but if you have IU for  a single condition and have another rating of 60 percent either single of combined, you should be OK.
    • Mine says about the same, 2018-2019.  I submitted several months before yours.  Complete BS!  I tried in person, and they said my file is "too big" to just print out for me.  Meanwhile, I have several contentions which will hit the one year mark since the decision in just a couple months.  How can I/we argue what they decided without knowing what they used to make the decision? 





klovisk

Reopen Claim That Has Nod Since 2011

3 posts in this topic

Hello, I am confused as to why the VARO reopened a right knee claim that has been in appeal since 05/2011. In March 2013 I faxed the RO and pointed out that my SMR has treatment records of my right knee in service. They had previously stated that I was denied because there was no proof that the injuries ocurred in service.

Also, the 05/2011 NOD includes back and left knee, which are being reviewed for an increase (don't know why the date is changed to 03/2013).

05/04/2011 Notice of Disagreement (NOD) RO 05/11/2011 Appeal Pending BVA


Claim Received: 03/19/2013
Claim Type: Compensation
Estimated Claim Completion Date: 12/01/2013 to 06/04/2014

Contentions: back condition (Increase), left knee condition (Increase), right knee condition (Reopen)
Claims Status Process

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



It sounds to me as though they might call a CUE on themselves and reverse the decision you filed the NOD on.

Orr they are now considering the claim based on 'newly discovered Service records."

(38 CFR 3.156 et al)

"In March 2013 I faxed the RO and pointed out that my SMR has treatment records of my right knee in service. They had previously stated that I was denied because there was no proof that the injuries ocurred in service." That has changed everything on the right knee claim.

Do you yourself have copies of those SMRs?

This really gets me...why didnt the VA pick up on the inservice treatment when you originally filed the claim.

Sometimes I wonder if they even read SMRs and this is why it is always a good idea to highlight on a copy of pertinent SMRs with a bright mgjic marker and refer to the entries along with the rest of the evidence being sent in for the claim.( to include an evidence list and sent in with a Proof of mailing.)

Good for you! You didn't let them get away with that erroneous denial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your response. I do have a copy of my SMR's. It is hard for me to digest, understand and remember things, but at least I finally caught the error. It scares me that the CnP doctor and the RO did not see this themselves. I know that we are our best advocate to win our claims, so I do try to read and re-read my documents, to make sure I did not miss something. I had my SMR records since 2010, but it took this long to understand that the RO said the injuries did not occur in service, while in fact my SMR records say otherwise.

Thank you again for the assistance you provide. It is very much appreciated.

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