mos1833 Posted October 14, 2016 Share Posted October 14, 2016 if i file a cue , can i call it a fdc type of claim, all the proof is already in my file. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 mos1833 Posted October 31, 2016 Author Share Posted October 31, 2016 any body ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Berta Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 I guess you could but it cannot be the same evidence they used to deny your last CUE, or filed on the same basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 mos1833 Posted October 31, 2016 Author Share Posted October 31, 2016 berta, its a request for the va to reconsider my back claim using the correct law and regulations . they said i was not intitled to benefits because my back injury was a defect and not a desease, so if they use 82-90 it would provide a sc rating ,there is a lot more to 82-90 , but its clear they never considered what the regulation calls for. thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Berta Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 (edited) " On 10/7/2015 at 1:02 PM, Berta said: I dont even know if the VA would re open a case that was lost at the Federal Court level. berta i went to the federal court, because the secretary appealed the courts decision . and the fedes ruled in my favor,it took six 6 yaers" http://community.hadit.com/topic/64353-gencoun-prec-82-90/?page=7 There are 304 hits here at hadit for this Pres op ( 82-90) and considerable discussion. Did you ever get an IMO/IME to try to re-open with ? It appeared to me that ,regardless of the General Counsel Pres Op, the VA had something else they used against the claim, after I read the CAVC case....I believe it was a post service back injury that fell under workman's comp.......I could be wrong.... was this your BVA case? http://www.va.gov/vetapp10/Files1/1009831.txt Edited November 1, 2016 by Berta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 mos1833 Posted November 1, 2016 Author Share Posted November 1, 2016 that is one of the many 95-42 640 claims , i got this number which was another vets claim number, at the same time ?? he used it twice , the rest are me. any way i told the r.o. that i never filed for workmans comp, and told them the address of the company they requested, all this on the phone, so it was taken care of .no opinion has discussed my claim using 82-90 , my medical records show from the first x-ray ( changes ) related to my back condition. my first x-ray in 1984 just stated = osteoarthritis related to the anomaly which were pointed out to be ( changes ) oh' i dont know if it matters or not but 82-90 is retroactive according to ( O'bryan v. mcdonald ) in 1984 the dr. didnt even give a nexus opinion, the only evidence against my claim was the interpretation of the x-ray made by the board which had a doctor on it , but no body signed it .even then they said i had osteoarthritis in my back but denied it because it was related to a defect ,and denied any presumpatives regulations. thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Berta Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 I have the full CAVC docket but this concerns me ( this has been discussed here before) "08/16/2004 Appellee's Notice of Appeal to the USCA for the Federal Circuit (M-8/16/2004) (MEYERK) (VB) 08/17/2004 Appellee's Notice of Appeal transmitted to USCA for the Federal Circuit (MEYERK) (VB) 09/01/2004 RECEIVED: Notice of docketing from the USCA for the Fed Cir dated 8/27/04 (#04-7159) (MEYERK) (VB) 03/07/2008 RECEIVED: Ord from USCA for the Fed. Circuit dated 3/5/08, the judgment of the CAVC is summarily affirmed and the case is remanded (#2004-7159) (MEYERK) (VB) 05/05/2008 RECEIVED: Ord from USCA for the Fed. Circuit dated 3/5/08, the judgment of the CAVC is summarily affirmed and the case is remanded; issued as a mandate 4/28/08 (#2004-7159) (MEYERK) (VB) 06/04/2008 Mandate (MEYERK) (VB)" You had the same lawyer that was on the BVA case I found. Daniel G. Krasnegor . Coincidence I guess.... This docket summary says the Fed Circuit affirmed the CAVC case and issued a mandate. Can you scan and attach the mandate? Did you ever get an IMO/IME that would have altered their decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Question
mos1833
if i file a cue , can i call it a fdc type of claim, all the proof is already in my file.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
4
4
Popular Days
Oct 31
3
Nov 1
3
Oct 14
1
Nov 2
1
Top Posters For This Question
mos1833 4 posts
Berta 4 posts
Popular Days
Oct 31 2016
3 posts
Nov 1 2016
3 posts
Oct 14 2016
1 post
Nov 2 2016
1 post
7 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