Here recently My EED for Tinntius was changed to a CUE case by my VARO and I was awarded an earlier effective date but not to my date of discharge date when I was diagnosed at my C&P Exam. I was told over the phone by the VARO that if I disagreed with their findings, it would be best to file a Motion to Reconsider as a BVA would take around two years to complete. That later I could still appeal if I felt it nessessary. I have written a rebuttal concerning my Tinnitus which I'm posting here for review as my VSO is useless.
Thanks,
Bill
BENEFITS SOUGHT: RECONSIDERATION OF APR 7, 2015 VARO DECISION
An Earlier Effective Date of November 13, 1995.
PURPOSE OF CORRESPONDENCE:
Submission of material regarding Benefits Sought for said Tinnitus Service Connection.
On 7 April 2015, the Atlanta VARO made a determination of my case concerning my Tinnitus as follows:
Entitlement to an earlier effective date for service connection of tinnitus is granted because a clear and unmistakable error was made; therefore, a 10 percent evaluation is assigned effective May 10, 2005.
The statement made in “Reason for Decision:”
“Therefore, entitlement to an earlier effective date for service connection of tinnitus is granted because a clear and unmistakable error was made and a 10 percent evaluation is assigned effective May 10, 2005, which is the date of the letter we received from you where you first explicitly claimed tinnitus (ringing in ears).”
This was not the case:
On 12 Nov 1995, I was discharged from the Marine Corps. On 06 Dec 1995, the Veterans Administration received my application for benefits. In my Audio C&P Exam Report dated on 02 Feb 1996, it was reported by my Examiner:
“Veteran was seen for an audiologic compensation and pension evaluation on January 27, 1996. He reported progressive bilateral hearing loss and occasional bilateral tinnitus, onset 1993 or 1994.”
Due to my 27 Jan 1996 Audio C&P Exam, I was service connected for Hearing Loss Left Ear. However, the ringing in my ears, diagnosed by the Examiner as Tinnitus, was not addressed.
(Note in 2011, I was service connected for Hearing Loss Right Ear with a EED of 13Nov1995)
The Doctor’s written statement was the result of a direct statement I made to the doctor stating that I had ringing in my ears while I was describing the symptoms of my hearing loss to ensure that this was also considered in my hearing claim.
The CAVC has stated that an informal claim for VA benefits requires:
1. An intent to apply for benefits,
2. An identification of the benefits sought, and
3. A communication in writing.
- Brokowski v. Shinseki, 23 Vet.App. 79, 84 (2009);
- See also 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a) (stating that an informal claim must “identify the benefit sought”).
- CAVC, quoting its decision in Brokowski, went on to state that “[A] claimant's identification of the benefit sought does not require any technical precision.”
- CAVC stated that a claimant sufficiently identifies the benefit sought “by referring to a body part or system that is disabled or by describing symptoms of the disability.”
All three of the CAVA requirements for an informal claim were met on 06 Dec 1995 when the Veterans Administration received my application for benefits which included a claim for hearing loss.
In Clemons, the CAVC held that even though vet claimed SC for a specific condition, VA may be obligated to consider SC for other diagnosed conditions as well if the vet mentions or if the vet’s records relate symptoms of the other conditions.
A claimant "[does] not file a claim to receive benefits only for a particular diagnosis, but for the affliction his . . . condition, whatever that is, causes him." Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009). Consequently, VA "should construe a claim based on the reasonable expectations of the non-expert, self-represented claimant and the evidence developed in processing that claim," taking into consideration "the claimant's description of the claim; the symptoms the claimant describes; and the information the claimant submits or that the Secretary obtains in support of the claim." Id. VA commits error "when it fail to weigh and assess the nature of the current condition the appellant suffer when determining the breadth of the claim before it." Id. at 6.
When a veteran files a claim, the VA is obligated to not only consider the claims specifically mentioned by the veteran, but also all benefits to which the veteran might be entitled that are supported by evidence of record.
See 38 C.F.R § 3.103(a) (2012) (“Proceedings before VA are ex parte in nature, and it is the obligation of VA to assist a claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim and to render a decision which grants every benefit that can be supported in law while protecting the interests of the government.”)
Once a claim is received, VA must review the claim, supporting documents, and oral testimony in a liberal manner.
In Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 69, 76 (1995), the Court held that claim documents must be read in a liberal manner so as to identify and carry out the required adjudication of all claims that are reasonably raised by the evidence of record whether or not formally claimed in a VA application.
Roberson v. Principi, 251 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2001) - holding VA has a duty to determine all potential claims raised by the evidence, applying all relevant laws and regulations.
The Federal Circuit has held on several occasions (Andrews, Moody, and Szemraj cases) that VA is required to:
Give sympathetic reading to the veteran’s filings
Determine all potential claims raised by evidence
Apply all relevant laws and regulations.
M21-1 DUTY TO CONSIDER NOTED DISABILITIES, EVEN IF NOT CLAIMED
Manual M21-1, Ch. 46.02, Change 400, 3/28/85,
DISPOSITION OF DISABILITIES NOTED OR CLAIMED:
a. Compensation Ratings. All disabilities claimed will be given consideration as to service connection and be coded as a disability rating on VA Form 21-6796.…Any additional disabilities noted will be coded, except:
(1) Acute transitory conditions that leave no residuals.
(2) Noncompensable residuals of venereal disease.
(3) Disabilities noted only on the induction examination, or conditions recorded by history only.
(4) Disabilities found by authorization to have not been incurred “in line of duty”.
b. Pension Ratings. Code all claimed or noted disabilities on VA Form 21-6796 and show the percent of disablement for each unless the disabilities have been held to be due to the claimant’s own willful misconduct by Administrative Decision….
c. Supplemental Ratings. (1) All previously rated serviceconnected and nonservice-connected disabilities must be brought forward on supplemental ratings on VA Form 21-6796….
If a disability was coded or should have been coded in a rating decision – there is a potential claim that should have been adjudicated.
A disability should have been coded in a rating decision if it was “noted.” In other words:
If during the development of a claim for service connection for Disability A, VA obtained a diagnosis of Disability B, then Disability B should have been coded in the rating decision for Disability A.
CURRENT M21-1MR PROVISIONS
There are several directives in the VA Adjudication Procedures Manual, M21-1 Manual Rewrite (Manual M21-1MR) that stress that all inferred issues also must be adjudicated.
Manual M21-1MR, Part III, subpart iv, 6.B.2. states:
When preparing a rating decision, the Rating Veterans Service Representative (RVSR) must recognize, develop, clarify and/or decide all issues and claims…
Whether they are expressly claimed issues, reasonably raised claims, or unclaimed subordinate issues and ancillary benefits.
Manual M21-1MR, Part III, subpart iv. 6.B.3. states:
A subordinate issue is derived from the consideration or outcome of related issues.
Often the primary and subordinate issues share the same fact pattern.
HARRIS v. SHINSEKI, No. 2012-7111 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 4, 2013) Addresses the analysis that VA must undertake – in determining whether an earlier effective date is warranted – whether a veteran has filed a claim for VA benefits.
The Federal Circuit determined that the CAVC failed to apply the proper legal standard for determining whether the BVA correctly determined the earliest possible date for vet’s benefits.
In the Federal Circuit Decision:
• Court said that under its cases, pro se pleadings (vet not represented by atty) must be read liberally –
• Roberson - VA has duty to fully develop any filing made by a pro se vet by determining all potential claims raised by the evidence.
- Szemraj – VA must generously construe a pro se veteran's filing to discern all possible claims raised by the evidence.
- Moody - Any ambiguity in a pro se filing that could be construed as an informal claim must be resolved in the veteran's favor.
- The Federal Circuit determined that the CAVC failed to apply the proper legal standard for determining whether the BVA correctly determined the earliest possible date for vet’s benefits.
- Federal Circuit stated that under its cases, pro se pleadings must be read liberally – Moody, zemraj, Roberson.
- Court stated that even though three cited cases involved CUE appeals, rather than direct appeals, the VA’s duty to read pro se filings liberally is equally applicable to CUE claims and direct appeals.
My Service Medical Record SF600 Dated 19 Nov 1990 stating:
“Ringing in the ears with upper freq testing.”
These Service Medical Records show relate symptoms that were never considered by the VA and therefore would constitute grounds for an Earlier Effective Date.
The CAVC has held even though a vet claimed SC for a specific condition, VA may be obligated to consider SC for other diagnosed conditions as well if the vet mentions or if the vet’s records relate symptoms of the other conditions. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009).
In Summary:
On 06 Dec 1995, the Veterans Administration received my application for benefits. In my Audio C&P Exam Report dated on 02 Feb 1996, it was reported by my Examiner:
“Veteran was seen for an audiologic compensation and pension evaluation on January 27, 1996. He reported progressive bilateral hearing loss and occasional bilateral tinnitus, onset 1993 or 1994.”
According to the M21-1 Manual, Ch. 46.02, Change 400, 3/28/85, the Diagnoses of Tinnitus made by the Doctor during my C&P Examination should have been coded since it was identified and required adjudication as all claims that are reasonably raised by the evidence of record whether or not formally claimed in a VA application.
Manual M21-1MR, Part III, subpart iv, 6.B.2. states:
When preparing a rating decision, the Rating Veterans Service Representative (RVSR) must recognize, develop, clarify and/or decide all issues and claims…Whether they are expressly claimed issues, reasonably raised claims, or unclaimed subordinate issues and ancillary benefits.
The assumption by VARO Atlanta that an Earlier Effective Date for Tinnitus did not exist until May 10, 2005 because it wasn’t written is in error.
The VA committed error when it failed to weigh, assess, and take into consideration the nature of the current condition and symptoms that I described during this C&P Exam. This was included in the information the VA obtained in support of the claim. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009)
HARRIS v. SHINSEKI, No. 2012-7111 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 4, 2013) Addresses the analysis that VA must undertake – in determining whether an earlier effective date is warranted – whether a veteran has filed a claim for VA benefits.
The Federal Circuit determined that the CAVC failed to apply the proper legal standard for determining whether the BVA correctly determined the earliest possible date for vet’s benefits.
In Federal Circuit Decisions, the Court has held:
Pro se pleadings must be read liberally –
VA has duty to fully develop any filing by determining all potential claims raised by the evidence.
VA must generously discern all possible claims raised by the evidence.
Any ambiguity that could be construed as an informal claim must be resolved in the veteran's favor.
Question
elcamino_77us
Good Afternoon Everybody.
Here recently My EED for Tinntius was changed to a CUE case by my VARO and I was awarded an earlier effective date but not to my date of discharge date when I was diagnosed at my C&P Exam. I was told over the phone by the VARO that if I disagreed with their findings, it would be best to file a Motion to Reconsider as a BVA would take around two years to complete. That later I could still appeal if I felt it nessessary. I have written a rebuttal concerning my Tinnitus which I'm posting here for review as my VSO is useless.
Thanks,
Bill
BENEFITS SOUGHT: RECONSIDERATION OF APR 7, 2015 VARO DECISION
An Earlier Effective Date of November 13, 1995.
PURPOSE OF CORRESPONDENCE:
Submission of material regarding Benefits Sought for said Tinnitus Service Connection.
On 7 April 2015, the Atlanta VARO made a determination of my case concerning my Tinnitus as follows:
Entitlement to an earlier effective date for service connection of tinnitus is granted because a clear and unmistakable error was made; therefore, a 10 percent evaluation is assigned effective May 10, 2005.
The statement made in “Reason for Decision:”
“Therefore, entitlement to an earlier effective date for service connection of tinnitus is granted because a clear and unmistakable error was made and a 10 percent evaluation is assigned effective May 10, 2005, which is the date of the letter we received from you where you first explicitly claimed tinnitus (ringing in ears).”
This was not the case:
On 12 Nov 1995, I was discharged from the Marine Corps. On 06 Dec 1995, the Veterans Administration received my application for benefits. In my Audio C&P Exam Report dated on 02 Feb 1996, it was reported by my Examiner:
“Veteran was seen for an audiologic compensation and pension evaluation on January 27, 1996. He reported progressive bilateral hearing loss and occasional bilateral tinnitus, onset 1993 or 1994.”
Due to my 27 Jan 1996 Audio C&P Exam, I was service connected for Hearing Loss Left Ear. However, the ringing in my ears, diagnosed by the Examiner as Tinnitus, was not addressed.
(Note in 2011, I was service connected for Hearing Loss Right Ear with a EED of 13Nov1995)
The Doctor’s written statement was the result of a direct statement I made to the doctor stating that I had ringing in my ears while I was describing the symptoms of my hearing loss to ensure that this was also considered in my hearing claim.
The CAVC has stated that an informal claim for VA benefits requires:
1. An intent to apply for benefits,
2. An identification of the benefits sought, and
3. A communication in writing.
- Brokowski v. Shinseki, 23 Vet.App. 79, 84 (2009);
- See also 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a) (stating that an informal claim must “identify the benefit sought”).
- CAVC, quoting its decision in Brokowski, went on to state that “[A] claimant's identification of the benefit sought does not require any technical precision.”
- CAVC stated that a claimant sufficiently identifies the benefit sought “by referring to a body part or system that is disabled or by describing symptoms of the disability.”
All three of the CAVA requirements for an informal claim were met on 06 Dec 1995 when the Veterans Administration received my application for benefits which included a claim for hearing loss.
In Clemons, the CAVC held that even though vet claimed SC for a specific condition, VA may be obligated to consider SC for other diagnosed conditions as well if the vet mentions or if the vet’s records relate symptoms of the other conditions.
A claimant "[does] not file a claim to receive benefits only for a particular diagnosis, but for the affliction his . . . condition, whatever that is, causes him." Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009). Consequently, VA "should construe a claim based on the reasonable expectations of the non-expert, self-represented claimant and the evidence developed in processing that claim," taking into consideration "the claimant's description of the claim; the symptoms the claimant describes; and the information the claimant submits or that the Secretary obtains in support of the claim." Id. VA commits error "when it fail to weigh and assess the nature of the current condition the appellant suffer when determining the breadth of the claim before it." Id. at 6.
When a veteran files a claim, the VA is obligated to not only consider the claims specifically mentioned by the veteran, but also all benefits to which the veteran might be entitled that are supported by evidence of record.
See 38 C.F.R § 3.103(a) (2012) (“Proceedings before VA are ex parte in nature, and it is the obligation of VA to assist a claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim and to render a decision which grants every benefit that can be supported in law while protecting the interests of the government.”)
Once a claim is received, VA must review the claim, supporting documents, and oral testimony in a liberal manner.
In Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 69, 76 (1995), the Court held that claim documents must be read in a liberal manner so as to identify and carry out the required adjudication of all claims that are reasonably raised by the evidence of record whether or not formally claimed in a VA application.
Roberson v. Principi, 251 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2001) - holding VA has a duty to determine all potential claims raised by the evidence, applying all relevant laws and regulations.
The Federal Circuit has held on several occasions (Andrews, Moody, and Szemraj cases) that VA is required to:
Give sympathetic reading to the veteran’s filings
Determine all potential claims raised by evidence
Apply all relevant laws and regulations.
M21-1 DUTY TO CONSIDER NOTED DISABILITIES, EVEN IF NOT CLAIMED
Manual M21-1, Ch. 46.02, Change 400, 3/28/85,
DISPOSITION OF DISABILITIES NOTED OR CLAIMED:
a. Compensation Ratings. All disabilities claimed will be given consideration as to service connection and be coded as a disability rating on VA Form 21-6796.…Any additional disabilities noted will be coded, except:
(1) Acute transitory conditions that leave no residuals.
(2) Noncompensable residuals of venereal disease.
(3) Disabilities noted only on the induction examination, or conditions recorded by history only.
(4) Disabilities found by authorization to have not been incurred “in line of duty”.
b. Pension Ratings. Code all claimed or noted disabilities on VA Form 21-6796 and show the percent of disablement for each unless the disabilities have been held to be due to the claimant’s own willful misconduct by Administrative Decision….
c. Supplemental Ratings. (1) All previously rated serviceconnected and nonservice-connected disabilities must be brought forward on supplemental ratings on VA Form 21-6796….
If a disability was coded or should have been coded in a rating decision – there is a potential claim that should have been adjudicated.
A disability should have been coded in a rating decision if it was “noted.” In other words:
If during the development of a claim for service connection for Disability A, VA obtained a diagnosis of Disability B, then Disability B should have been coded in the rating decision for Disability A.
CURRENT M21-1MR PROVISIONS
There are several directives in the VA Adjudication Procedures Manual, M21-1 Manual Rewrite (Manual M21-1MR) that stress that all inferred issues also must be adjudicated.
Manual M21-1MR, Part III, subpart iv, 6.B.2. states:
When preparing a rating decision, the Rating Veterans Service Representative (RVSR) must recognize, develop, clarify and/or decide all issues and claims…
Whether they are expressly claimed issues, reasonably raised claims, or unclaimed subordinate issues and ancillary benefits.
Manual M21-1MR, Part III, subpart iv. 6.B.3. states:
A subordinate issue is derived from the consideration or outcome of related issues.
Often the primary and subordinate issues share the same fact pattern.
HARRIS v. SHINSEKI, No. 2012-7111 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 4, 2013) Addresses the analysis that VA must undertake – in determining whether an earlier effective date is warranted – whether a veteran has filed a claim for VA benefits.
The Federal Circuit determined that the CAVC failed to apply the proper legal standard for determining whether the BVA correctly determined the earliest possible date for vet’s benefits.
In the Federal Circuit Decision:
• Court said that under its cases, pro se pleadings (vet not represented by atty) must be read liberally –
• Roberson - VA has duty to fully develop any filing made by a pro se vet by determining all potential claims raised by the evidence.
- Szemraj – VA must generously construe a pro se veteran's filing to discern all possible claims raised by the evidence.
- Moody - Any ambiguity in a pro se filing that could be construed as an informal claim must be resolved in the veteran's favor.
- The Federal Circuit determined that the CAVC failed to apply the proper legal standard for determining whether the BVA correctly determined the earliest possible date for vet’s benefits.
- Federal Circuit stated that under its cases, pro se pleadings must be read liberally – Moody, zemraj, Roberson.
- Court stated that even though three cited cases involved CUE appeals, rather than direct appeals, the VA’s duty to read pro se filings liberally is equally applicable to CUE claims and direct appeals.
My Service Medical Record SF600 Dated 19 Nov 1990 stating:
“Ringing in the ears with upper freq testing.”
These Service Medical Records show relate symptoms that were never considered by the VA and therefore would constitute grounds for an Earlier Effective Date.
The CAVC has held even though a vet claimed SC for a specific condition, VA may be obligated to consider SC for other diagnosed conditions as well if the vet mentions or if the vet’s records relate symptoms of the other conditions. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009).
In Summary:
On 06 Dec 1995, the Veterans Administration received my application for benefits. In my Audio C&P Exam Report dated on 02 Feb 1996, it was reported by my Examiner:
“Veteran was seen for an audiologic compensation and pension evaluation on January 27, 1996. He reported progressive bilateral hearing loss and occasional bilateral tinnitus, onset 1993 or 1994.”
According to the M21-1 Manual, Ch. 46.02, Change 400, 3/28/85, the Diagnoses of Tinnitus made by the Doctor during my C&P Examination should have been coded since it was identified and required adjudication as all claims that are reasonably raised by the evidence of record whether or not formally claimed in a VA application.
Manual M21-1MR, Part III, subpart iv, 6.B.2. states:
When preparing a rating decision, the Rating Veterans Service Representative (RVSR) must recognize, develop, clarify and/or decide all issues and claims…Whether they are expressly claimed issues, reasonably raised claims, or unclaimed subordinate issues and ancillary benefits.
The assumption by VARO Atlanta that an Earlier Effective Date for Tinnitus did not exist until May 10, 2005 because it wasn’t written is in error.
The VA committed error when it failed to weigh, assess, and take into consideration the nature of the current condition and symptoms that I described during this C&P Exam. This was included in the information the VA obtained in support of the claim. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009)
HARRIS v. SHINSEKI, No. 2012-7111 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 4, 2013) Addresses the analysis that VA must undertake – in determining whether an earlier effective date is warranted – whether a veteran has filed a claim for VA benefits.
The Federal Circuit determined that the CAVC failed to apply the proper legal standard for determining whether the BVA correctly determined the earliest possible date for vet’s benefits.
In Federal Circuit Decisions, the Court has held:
Pro se pleadings must be read liberally –
VA has duty to fully develop any filing by determining all potential claims raised by the evidence.
VA must generously discern all possible claims raised by the evidence.
Any ambiguity that could be construed as an informal claim must be resolved in the veteran's favor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
7
4
3
1
Popular Days
Apr 26
9
Apr 25
5
Apr 27
3
Jun 19
1
Top Posters For This Question
elcamino_77us 7 posts
Buck52 4 posts
Berta 3 posts
saints13 1 post
Popular Days
Apr 26 2015
9 posts
Apr 25 2015
5 posts
Apr 27 2015
3 posts
Jun 19 2015
1 post
Popular Posts
Berta
I just remembered something funny..... many years ago someone here 'chastised' me for telling vets to cite the regulations in their NODs and stuff. even CAVC precedent decisions. They said I had
Berta
It is FL 10-35 : It involves any MOS that definitely caused HL but says this: "A Veteran is competent to report symptoms of hearing loss and/or tinnitus as a disability because symptoms of
elcamino_77us
Good Afternoon Everybody. Here recently My EED for Tinntius was changed to a CUE case by my VARO and I was awarded an earlier effective date but not to my date of discharge date when I was diagnos
17 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now