New evidence question

[2NDMARDIVDOC]

Hello and thanks in advance. As some of you already know I've asked a few questions about my claim for overactive bladder. The back story is this. 

When I discharged back in 2002 one of my claims was overactive bladder. It was diagnosed in service and I was put on meds for it. On my discharge physical it is clearly outlined about the condition. However, the doctor that did the physical wrote "ncd" next to the condition. It wasn't until yesterday that I discovered it meant "not considered disabling" 

the VA denied my claim for the bladder because they claimed that the "Perpondence of evidence" was not in my favor. I never disputed the denial. Over the last several months my bladder condition has worsened and is well documented. 

I had found some "new" evidence from back in the service that I didn't think the VA had when they denied me. So I submitted that as well as all my recent urology records. 

My C&P was yesterday. The examiner was actually very nice and very thorough. She started digging through my original records that the VA had back in 2002. I noticed that the VA in fact DID have the records that I thought they didn't. 

Anyway, here's the questions  I submitted the reopening of the claim based on "new evidence" and requested a CUE  as it turns out, the only "new" evidence I submitted was the recent urology reports  

I did see where regional requested a medical opinion / nexus from the examiner . Is it accurate to think that if they were going to dismiss the "new" evidence that it would have never been granted a C&P exam??? 

Would the recent urology reports be seen as new evidence? Obviously they didn't exist when the claim was originally denied and the urology reports from the military had already been considered so in reality the only new evidence I actually submitted was the stuff from just the last 5 months. 

 

 

[broncovet]

The "threshold" to reopen due to new and material evidence (38 CFR 3.156) is low, and your C and P exam apparently suggests you met that low threshold and they reopened it.  

There can be a big difference in the effective date, however, if its new and material EVIDENCE or new sevice records.  See 38 CFR 3.156, especially section C, new service records.  Also, if your claim was "pending" when you resubmitted new evidence, then you may be eligible for an earlier effective date in 38 CFR 3.156 B.  

But worry about the effective date later, after you get your sc and rating.  You can appeal any decision where you dispute the effective date, by simply filing in a NOD form, where you state, to the effect that you dispute the effective date.  

[2NDMARDIVDOC]

Thanks Bronco.

[MikeHunt]

On 1/5/2017 at 10:14 PM, broncovet said:

 C and P exam apparently suggests you met that low threshold and they reopened it.

Absolutely correct! they would've just sent you a denial letter if they went with 'New and material'

[2NDMARDIVDOC]

And by "low threshold" are you referring to the CUE? Are you saying that if they weren't considering the CUE they would have sent a denial letter saying they were not going to entertain the CUE claim? 

BTW, when I was at my CP exam this week for the bladder I did see the examiners paperwork where regional was asking the "as likely as not" question. I know she marked me "more likely than not" on the exam. 

Thoughts? 

[MikeHunt]

All rather academic-

You submitted new evidence in the urology exams, but it also needs to be material. My guess is the VSR saw the service records you turned in, and never found them in the old records to challenge them as being new.

Or did the right thing... I don't really know how CUE works.

In any case, congrats- No matter the reason!

[2NDMARDIVDOC]

Mike, I'm new to the claims process and not really up to speed on the language used. Please define what you mean by "needs to be material" 

Thank you

John