Actual effective date on a claim

[Jimmer]

Hi, I am not sure I am on the right are for my question, if not I apologize.  I had a long running battle with the V.A. on S.C. for my eyes.  I renewed by filing about 11 years ago, and with you help and guidance I was successful. I cannot thank you enough how grateful I am for your help.   My question is that I originally filed a claim in May 1970, for my eyes.  I had been released from the USMC for a couple months, and I  filed I provided the doctor's information at the naval hospital, and two eye specialists.  I received a letter back from the Adjudication officer that said "We have found it necessary to deny this claim for eye condition because the condition cannot be classified as a disease or injury for which compensation will be paid".  I had the case re-opened in 1978, provided the Naval doctor name dates (he made the determination to release me), contacted three eye specialists provide information  to the V.A.  I received another letter from a different Adjudication Officer stating "As before stated in our letter of May 1970, we have found it necessary to deny your claim for a eye condition because the disease was pre -existed (not true!) service and cannot be classified as a disease or injury for which compensation can be paid".   I tired again in March 1981, same results. The V.A. never looked at the information, contacted the Naval doctor for the information.  It was only with a BVA appeal that the judge ruled in my favor.  The Naval Doctor had a complete file of what had happen. I feel that I should have a earlier effective date then what was given to me.  I just found these letter in info in my C-file, buried in a folder,  slightly crumpled.  I knew this existed, put I couldn't lay my hands on it until now.  I feel the just "rubber stamp" a denial every time I sent in the forms without doing any follow-thru.   Thanks for your help.

[Jimmer]

Buck52, I suffered "blunt force trauma" to my eyes.  My left eye I have a detached retina, and they tried  three operations to fix it, but to no avail.  The damage was to great, along with glaucoma, which was brought on by the trauma.  I am "legally blind" in the left eye, and my right eye is not much better.

[Jimmer]

broncovet, thanks a lot for your input. I will contact Mr. Glover Luck out of Dallas, Texas.  I have the original  BVA decision, and a VA "CUE", in which they "CUE'D" themselves, and upped my rating.  Thanks again.

[broncovet]

Its "Julie Glover" from the law firm "Glover Luck".  

[demeat]

Are you still seeking some legal help?  The law office that just handled my appeal did a great job!!!! 

[Jimmer]

Yes, demeat, what law firm did you use.  I am still in the process of gathering all my information.  Thanks!

[Gastone]

Jimmer, do you have any idea (guesstimate) regarding possible Retro $$, best case scenario?

"For Fee" VA lawyers, Law Firms and probably even Agents will take the possible Award Retro $$ into consideration. If you start getting "We're sorry, just too busy with other Appeals" as the reason for them being unable to Rep you, call the Pro Bono Veterans Legal Consortium in DC. 

A high school buddy recently ( mid-2014)  had the Low Retro experience with a well known (Hadit Advertiser) Law Firm, too Busy to rep, wish you well. He had a 6 yr ED and Hypertension Denial which was at the BVA when he decided to fire his VSO.

I had told him the low Retro was going to be a problem, turned out it was but he wanted to try the "For Fee" firms first. He finally agreed to contact the Veterans legal Consortium, they ended up repping him at the DC BVA hearing in late 15 (Denied) and the CAVC, Remanded late 16. VLS got about $18K in Legal Fees directly from the VA for the CAVC Remand, which is considered an Award.

The Remand Award resulted in the ED being Awarded, 6 yrs worth, about  $7200 in Retro early 2017.  Had that been Awarded at the BVA, a "For Fee" lawyer would have been "Direct Pay" from the Vet's Retro amount, a mere $1440.00.

Do you think the "For Fee" Firms were really too busy or just didn't want to risk the 20% of a low $$ BVA Award. They don't get Legal Fees unless successful (Awarded or Remanded) at the CAVC.

Semper Fi