Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

VA Disability Claims Articles

Ask Your VA Claims Question | Current Forum Posts Search | Rules | View All Forums
VA Disability Articles | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users

FormerMember

Former Member
  • Posts

    1,694
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    115

FormerMember last won the day on April 12 2022

FormerMember had the most liked content!

About FormerMember

  • Birthday 04/01/1951

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    asknod@gmail.com
  • Website URL
    http://asknod.org

Profile Information

  • Military Rank
    Sgt. E-4
  • Location
    Gig Harbor, Washington
  • Interests
    VA Nonattorney practitioner #39029 POA Code E1P; Admitted to CAVC; Member NOVA, CAVC Bar Association

Previous Fields

  • Branch of Service
    USAF/AirAm/USAID 1969-1973

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Let's cut to the chase. There is no CUE here. A subcontractor/clinician from QTC/VES/LHI has been trained to ask you when you come in for a c&p : "How are you today?" Most folks will answer neutrally or say something to the effect that they are "Fine, and you?" This is a pleasantry normal people exchange with one another. VA, however, will always weaponize it to extrapolate it to mean you are stating you are fine and denying anything is wrong with you. I've been watching this phenomenon ever since it happened to me in 1989. VA has a finite bag of tricks to deny with. They can legally say that you went to a psych c&p and no diagnosis was rendered of a mental disorder or your claimed disability of ________________ (fill in the blank). Right there at that point if you had obtained a private nexus letter (IMO) from a shrink saying you had bent brain syndrome, you would have prevailed. Ditto right foot pain. But, as you say, you did not know how the dog and pony show worked back then. Most Vets didn't and still don't. You didn't appeal and that was fatal to revisiting this denial now in 2022. As Berta pointed out, you can never argue how the evidence was decided in CUE. As for §3.156(c), do you have relevant medical records which show a real, bonafide dx of MDD while in service which has never been made a matter of record? If not, that theory goes down the drain. Anxiety/GAD/ PTSD/MST/Bipolar etc. are a group of major depressive disorders (MDD) adjudicated under §4.130. Pyramiding prevents an award for each one. There are 31 different forms of MDD. As with all claims, I almost always find that someone "diagnosed" a Vet w/ MDD in-say 2005. But the diagnosis was done by someone with a MHS (mental health specialist) "degree" after their name. No dice. It has to be a psychologist with a real degree in psychotherapy-not a six month degree out of a Crackerjacks box. They'll have Psy.D after their name. I think everyone reading this knows you got screwed. The repair order is extremely limited. You say you got the 70% in 2015. Unless you're still litigating that as an active justiciable appeal, it, too, is a final decision which could only be overturned by a clear and unmistakable error of law. I've had claimants say at a c&p that they think they got Hep. C from a jetgun. Bad idea. You are not a doctor so that is off limits. But what you will often see is the clinician state that you admitted to a history of illicit drug use and that explains it. Of course you didn't say that but how do you negate that statement? It's too late. Sure, VA is not allowed to do it but they do. That's why Theresa invented this gig. We teach you how not to step on your necktie. In your case, I think that ship has already sailed but without a review of the claims file, it's impossible to say with any certainty. One trick I've learned to reopen these as a §3.156(c) claim is to go back to the NPRC and ask for any "inpatient records" if you were ever admitted to a military hospital. These records are kept separate in another building at NPRC and are almost never included in any SF 180 request. I went back three times and got a new tranche of records each time. If any of these are pertinent to your 2005 claims, then you can get a can opener into an earlier effective date. It's perfectly legal to get a retrospective IMO and have a dr. opine as to what your mental state was back then when you're doing a §3.156(c) claim. Best of luck.
  2. Hi asknod, this is the information that I sent to Berta yesterday. I am new to this forum and not quite sure what the sop is here. Thanks in advance!

    Hi Berta and thank you for your response to my question! I received a 10% SC rating for hypertension in 1988. That was my first rated condition. Then in November of 2008, I was diagnosed with popliteal aneurysms, bilaterally, (they are a large artery aneurysm behind the knee) after having an MRI for a painful right knee. Then in December of 2008, I had a CT scan which revealed my aortic aneurysm at 3.5cm. I had popliteal bypass surgery in 2009. The first one in February and the second six months later in August, 2009. I had the American Legion representing me at that time, and they filed a claim on my behalf in 2009  for peripheral vascular disease. At that time I had no idea how any of this worked or any knowledge of the schedule of ratings. I now believe that they made a big mistake in filing for peripheral vascular disease when it was clear that I had two "large artery aneurysms", which were not in the aorta! That filing would have awarded me 100% disability for one year (six months for each surgery). Then a final rating would have taken place after that period of time. Instead I was awarded 0% SC for peripheral vascular disease. I went to work for the VA Medical Center in Detroit Michigan in 2012, as a temporary hire - Engineering Technician. They liked my work ethic and finally made me a permanent VA employee. I really enjoyed working there till I resigned in 2017. During the five years working there is when I gained the knowledge of the schedule 38 ratings and by no means did I become an expert at it. I signed up the VFW there at the hospital and they filed a claim for me for painful popliteal surgical scars, I think in 2014. I was awarded 20% SC for the painful surgical scars. Then in 2016, a routine CT scan revealed that my aortic aneurysm had enlarged to 5.2cm. The VFW filed a claim for my larger than 5cm aortic aneurysm and I then received 100% P & T for my aortic aneurysm, secondary to hypertension. In 2017, I had the VFW file a claim for an increase in the peripheral vascular disease rating from 2009. They filed a claim for an increase rating for hypertension and for peripheral vascular disease, both of which were denied. While waiting for this decision, the husband of my service officer at the VAMC in Detroit, called me and was trying to convince me to drop my claim. He said that I was already 100% and could not receive anything more. I believed this to be an outright lie and I never trusted the VFW after that, or any other service official. So I filed my NOD myself after I was denied and got nowhere, very slowly! In 2018 I suffered a cerebral accident (stroke) and I filed a claim and received 30% for loss of peripheral right side vision. It was determined at my C & P examination that it was related to my aortic aneurysm. Then in 2019 I filed a claim for popliteal large artery aneurysm which the VA just grouped together with my SC aortic aneurysm and called them one in the same, which they are not. I had a HLR which the HLR officer called me and agreed with me and said that I would have a favorable outcome. But the VA stuck with there original decision, overriding the HLR decision. So then I filed a NOD and my claim for popliteal aneurysms is at the BVA since March 17, 2020. No decision from them yet! In 2020 I filed a claim for hearing loss and tinnitus and received a 0% SC for hearing loss bilaterally, and a 10% SC for tinnitus. So there is so much more in between the lines information that I simply can't recall, but this is really my journey so far with the VBA. Thanks once again for your help Berta!

    1. MFZ

      MFZ

      Asknod, I also have peripheral neuropathy in both of my feet (cold to the touch and a complete loss of hair on my feet and ankles) I also have type II diabetes. I never filed a claim for either of these conditions. My vascular nurse said that my feet pain is a symptom of my type II diabetes, however, I believe that my popliteal aneurysms could have something to do with it as well! Thanks, MarkZ

  3. As I am accredited, I am not permitted to conduct business on an open forum for fear of divulging PII. If you would, please send me an email with the scanned .pdf you mention attached to gagraham51@gmail.com. I would be happy to take a gander and see if anything jumps out and bites me on the eye. Please explain in the email the case or controversy contention, the cite/reg/statute you rely on and which VA violated and the outcome-determinative error if it isn't adequately explained. r a
  4. Mr. CUE--- Here's the meat of Akles v Derwinski: Specifically, the Veteran asserts that the Board’s June 2001 decision failed to infer a claim for SMC from the evidence then of record. The Veteran has emphasized the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC’s) earlier 1991 holding that a claim for increased disability compensation may include the “inferred issue” of entitlement to SMC, even where the veteran has not expressly placed entitlement to SMC at issue. Akles v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 118, 121 (1991). The Veteran maintains the Board failed to apply the holding of Akles to the evidence then of record. The Veteran notes that the June 2001 Board decision found that the Veteran’s service-connected knees were incapable of bearing weight, such that he was confined to a wheelchair, and asserts that such factual finding “undebatably” supports the Veteran’s was incapable of performing acts of balance and propulsion due to his service-connected knees. In essence, the Veteran contends that the Board had already made all of the requisite factual findings necessary to establish entitlement to SMC based on the loss of use of the lower extremities, but ultimately failed to explicitly adjudicate such issue to the detriment of the Veteran. The Veteran asserts that had this CUE not occurred, the outcome of the Veteran’s case would have manifestly been different - in addition to being granted the increased ratings for his bilateral knee disabilities, he would have also been entitled to SMC based on loss of use of his legs preventing natural knee action under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(m). Both the CAVC and the Federal Circuit Court have held the RO's failure to address an implied claim is an action that can be challenged through a motion for CUE. Evans v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 180, 185 n.3 (2014) (en banc); Deshotel v. Nicholson, 457 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2006). When presented with such a request, VA must first give a full and sympathetic reading to the claimant's prior submissions to determine whether such a claim was reasonably raised. Roberson v. Principi, 251 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Szemraj v. Principi, 357 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2004). If it is determined that a claim was reasonably raised, VA must then determine whether such a claim is pending or whether it was adjudicated as part of a final decision. If such a reasonably raised claim remains pending, then there is no decision on that claim to revise on the basis of CUE. In that situation, the pending claim must be adjudicated by VA. However, if VA determines that the claim was adjudicated, and is no longer pending, then the claimant may collaterally attack the resulting decision on the basis of CUE. Richardson, 20 Vet. App. at 71-72. Stated another way, the Secretary’s failure to adjudicate a reasonably raised claim can be the basis of the CUE motion as to a final decision of the Secretary where the issue was relevant to a decision actually made. Ingram v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 232, 254-55 (2007). VAOPGCPREC 4-2004 (May 28, 2004) SMC may be granted to Veterans who are so disabled that they require regular aid and attendance or are housebound. Prejean v. West, 13 Vet.App. 444, 447 (2000)
  5. A review of your listed disabilities would be broken down by VA for SMC S purposes thusly: Your cardio problems fall into The Cardiovascular System (§§ 4.100 - 4.104). Aortic aneurysm is rated as 100% under DC 7110. Hypertension, if due to a heart issue is rated under DC 7007. If due to a vascular disease process such as Diabetes Mellitus type II, under DC 7101. Regardless, both are considered part of the cardiovascular ratings. Your ischemic stroke with right homonymous hemianopia is, again a product of the cardiovascular system. I suspect it is rated as an intraocular hemorrhage under §4.79 DC 6007. On this one, VA may say it's a part of the stroke which would again still be in the cardiovascular arena but since it is rated at 30%, I expect it could be an eye rating under §4.79 DC 6007 for intraocular hemorrhage or for loss of visual field. In addition, you have lower extremity scars bilaterally, presumably due to your peripheral vascular disease. Scars are rated under skin (a separate and distinct issue from a cardiovascular disease) involving a different bodily system. Skin is rated under §4.118. Lastly, you have tinnitus which is rated under §4.87 DC 6260. In sum, you have 30% for the eye, 10% for scars plus 10% for De Luca Pain bilaterally and 10% for the tinnitus. Using §4.25, you can see 30% + 20% + 10% = 50% Without a doubt, due to the cardio issues all being part of the same bodily system, you will not have enough to reach 60% or more based on separate and distinct ratings from the cardio. Which is not to say you couldn't file for other disabilities secondary to the cardio such as a MDD which is separate and distinct (mental under §4.130). Personally, I don't see anything that could ever rise to the level of a CUE here. I've done hundreds of SMC CUEs and every one of them was a failure to infer the highest SMC entitlement under Akles v. Derwinski precedence without having to be prodded with a pitchfork by the Vet to grant it. VA generally will declare CUE on themselves when I catch them at it and then write a new rating decision granting the proper SMC. In your case, you simply don't have enough ratings that are separate and distinct that equal 60% or more to qualify. Best of luck, sir.
  6. FormerMember

    SMC-S multiple items

    That's where the VA and I digress. VA likes to throw anything and everything associated with a disease into the same basket. The actual language, as parsed in numerous CAVC cases, is the unique language used in §3.350(f)(3) and (4)- - must be separate and distinct and involve different anatomical segments or bodily systems. Based on this, and all the cases I've won citing to this interpretation of the language in the regulation, psoriasis is rated under §4.118. Arthritis is rated under Musculoskeletal (§4.71a) between DC 5002-5010. As such, they are two separate and distinct disease processes/ bodily systems. This is what I always argue at bar. With that said, look at DM II or Parkinson's. VA tends to lump everything together. DM II gets PN and DR (diabetic retinopathy) thrown in on top. Sometimes even renal deficits. I've won L using that argument. Parkinson's gets the same full meal deal treatment with all the extremity deficits combined with facial muscle sag, trouble swallowing, etc. I've won using this argument too. What VA does with the SMC S will in large part control what happens some time in the future with an a&a rating. VA will definitely argue the psoriatic arthritis is secondary to the psoriasis under §3.310- which it is. But, for rating purposes under §4.25(b), they are separate and distinct and involve different bodily systems. Trust me when I say someone will come along and disagree with me on this subject but my experience is based on actual hands-on litigation for clients-not speculation and conjecture about what VA might or might not do. SMC is very difficult to fathom. My advice is to stress that the two diseases are not one. Best of luck, sir.
  7. An interesting perspective. Everything there is to know about CUE has already been archived here. All of you just need to look up the accrued wisdom from the CUE meister. Can it be that VA CUE law has been clarified like butter? Maybe. Maybe not. I do hope someone comes along to help you LJL. That is the purpose of the website from what I've been told. Maybe things have changed in this particular subforum. Best of luck.
  8. FormerMember

    SMC-S multiple items

    Well, you have it right for the most part, sir. The only qualifier that you don't "sound out" is that the balance of the ratings that constitute your extra 60% (or more) must all be independently ratable and be separate and distinct from your psoriatic arthritis disability. You'd need to employ §4.25 to add them up. You cannot use anything "left over" from your psoriatic arthritis ratings to fill in the 60% to get to SMC S under §3.350(i)(1). Obviously, an alternative, but far more arduous path to get to SMC S would be to get a diagnosis of being "housebound in fact" under §3.350(i)(2). Best of luck.
  9. The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance. The enemy of knowledge is the illusion of knowledge Stephen Hawking
  10. Statistics, extraneous references to miscoding, Links to other websites etc. Let's parse what the Veteran's actual question is without sending him on a wild goose chase for footnotes or debate what or who represents suitable legal representation. There are other venues which address these issues. This venue is devoted to SMC. Mr. White asked: "i have been awarded loss of use for both feet and both hands due to parkinson's. they gave me an effective date of oct. 2021 when i filed my claim but my medical records show symptoms back to 2016. should they have made the effective date 2016 since parkinson's falls under nehmer law." My first reply addressed this conundrum three days ago. If the Veteran filed a claim for Paralysis Agitans (or Parkinson's) in 2016, that would be the date of his Nehmer-class herbicide exposure claim-regardless of if he lost, refiled in 2021 and won. See §3.816(c)(2). Any SMC award for loss of use of any extremity or extremities, upper or lower, can be no earlier than his date of claim. (§§3.1; 3.400(a)). I suppose if the Veteran is still confused after reading all this, it would do no harm to seek counsel from the NVLSP, the Veterans Pro Bono Consortium or even private attorneys such as those mentioned above. Advice is generally free from these sources. But to avoid confusion in my answers to others, I always quote regulation or federal precedence. I suggest others do too. It's easy for a Veteran learning this to find and confirm what another Hadit member is talking about. Vague references to what a guy at NVLSP who is the Director of Training and Publications (not the head Nehmer lawyer according to the roster-https://www.nvlsp.org/about-us/staff/) said in a footnote is not what the Vet is looking for-especially someone so severely disabled by Parkinson's. He seeks an answer about the effective date of his claim. He confuses it with his date of entitlement to SMC. They are two different dates and two different facets of VA law. Date of claim here is controlled by §3.307(a)(6)(ii). SMC effective date is controlled by what date he met the requirements of §3.350(e)(3). Let's clear the air for the Veteran. Assuming the rating authority did this correctly, the Veteran is rated at R1 (at a minimum) due to loss of use of all four extremities. You can confirm this entitlement by reading §3.350(e)(3) in its entirety. " The fact, however, that two separate and distinct entitling disabilities, such as anatomical loss, or loss of use of both hands and both feet, result from a common etiological agent, for example, one injury or rheumatoid arthritis [Parkinson's], will not preclude maximum entitlement. Further, if he's rated for Parkinson's, it's axiomatic he is a Nehmer class action member. I think we can all agree that pretty much goes without saying. Shoot. Maybe not... The only thing after R1 is R2 which is nothing more than an increase of R1 based the need for a 'higher level of care' described in §3.352(b)-not §3.352(a). §3.352(a) describes regular aid and attendance and is extraneous to anything of or having to do with R2. The only way to attain an earlier effective date for his R1, as I explained in my first reply to this thread, was to file a 20-0995 supplemental (or a BVA 10 182) and show, by new and relevant evidence, that a doctor had diagnosed him with LOU of the extremity(ies) due to Parkinson's prior to October 2021. If the evidence is deemed sufficient, that will be the revised effective date. If he's pro se, he can do it himself. If he has an accredited representative, they are presumed competent to file it. I don't see why he should seek counsel from anyone, personally. Seems he's doing a pretty bang up job so far with whomever he has considering there are only 4,650 Veterans rated R1 in the entire VA compensation system. The entrance into the higher SMCs (L-P) begins with a single disability rated 100% schedular like IHD or a combination of disabilities due to one condition such as Parkinson's or Diabetes. You cannot become eligible for SMC at the L rate for aid and attendance without this. For those of you who like to cite to the M 21, look it up in WARMS-IV.ii 2.H.8.b. As for NVLSP filing frivolous claims or appeals, I have not, and did not, imply as much. Reading comprehension is essential to avoid misconstruing my or others' comments. I referred strictly to the Veteran filing the appeal or hiring another to do so (such as NVLSP). Only he is aware of his medical history. If he has no supportive medical evidence entitling him to an earlier effective date, it would be considered frivolous for him (the Veteran), or his counsel (or someone acting sua sponte) to seek the EED. That is prohibited by operation of law. It's called an act of omission or commission in §3.105. Look it up. If you commit fraud, you lose your benefits. Would any of you want that on your conscience? Does that make any sense to anyone learned in VA law here? As for the wrong "coding"- meaning the wrong diagnostic code being assigned from Part IV VASRD in a prior rating decision, I made sure to enunciate the pertinent regulation ( §3.816(c)(1)) concerning that eventuality at the outset in my first post. It's far easier to look up the regulation than to go on safari to look up the original 1989 Nehmer stipulations and any applicable footnotes. It confuses Veterans when we offer them contradictory advice which doesn't even touch on their question. VA law is confusing enough without offering advice which simply provokes more questions and searches. Besides, when you write up your 995 or 526 or 10 182, you better be citing to the controlling VA regulation and not Nehmer Settlement footnotes. SMC law is very, very unique and exponentially more confusing than any other facet of VA law. There is usually a simple answer to a SMC "what if?" This is why Theresa set up this subsection devoted exclusively to SMC. If you don't practice SMC law, you stand a strong chance of offering inaccurate advice which can irrevocably harm a Veteran. As they taught us long ago, keep it simple, stupid (KISS). I adhere to that precept. If you are somewhat versed in SMC, try to explain it via the written regulations in §§3.350; 3.352. If, not, wish them good luck. When it concerns both SMC and herbicide exposure claims, it really doesn't change the circumstances. A code rating sheet and a claims file would easily reveal an earlier filing for a disease or injury later added to §3.309(e). That's Sherlock Holmes 101 or should be in this business. NVLSP doesn't have a corner on that market. I wager a hundred dollars that half (or more) of Vietnam Vets don't even know they belong to a special class known as Nehmer. Conversely, 100% of us who were there simply call it Agent Orange exposure. That's one of the reasons why they invented the VVA. Let's do all of our members a favor and concentrate on providing an answer to SMC questions posed in this queue. Try to provide the controlling regulation if possible. By extension, do them a favor and refrain from drowning them in minutiae which is irrelevant or fails to answer the question as posed. I'm sure they will appreciate it. We have many knowledgeable members here who can answer questions. That's why Veterans come here to Hadit. Remember, we're here to answer their "how come..." questions. Oddly, I get BVA SMC decisions back where the VA's staff attorneys can't even figure it out. It's that difficult. Let that sink in.
  11. As VA representatives, we are forbidden to launch frivolous appeals with a "throw the spaghetti at the wall and see if anything sticks" mentality. By operation of law, if Mr. White or his representative can show by the new and relevant evidence standard that he does indeed have a medical doctor who had specifically opined (at some earlier date) that his functional impairment of the lower(and/or upper) extremities was such that "he would be equally well served by elective amputation and use of suitable prostheses.", then by all means he should file a supplemental claim post haste. But...if he doesn't have that earlier diagnosis, any appeal would be frivolous on its face and squandering scarce judicial assets better reserved for more equally deserving Veterans. I know Veterans who offer advice here are very proactive and encourage litigation. I commend them for their efforts. But in doing so, one has to put it in perspective. Egging a Veteran on to file frivolous appeals which are futile is counterproductive and clogs up an overloaded system. It would be better to inform them of what they need to prevail successfully than the telephone number for the NVLSP. Mr. White appears to be ably represented as witness to his award of R1. Jumping ship to a new representative in the middle of a winning streak would actually be ill-advised. Our job is to help Veterans by giving them the best advice we can here at Hadit. That's what this is all about. I think the right approach would be for him to instruct his VSO or counsel, whoever it may be, and ask them to do a thorough longitudinal review of the claims file back to the time frame mentioned to find medical evidence to support the contention for an EED. Others here may disagree with me but that's okay. Everyone has a different opinion on how to litigate. Or not to.
  12. When you play VA SMC poker, never leave any money on the table. I know this is chump change but my client might feel different. Win or Die. redact BVA SMC K win 1.6.22.pdf
  13. Jez, Buck. I didn't know I wasn't supposed to let my clients look at my VBMS feed. I did the TRIPS check ride on VBMS and CASEFLOW back in '18, and they sure didn't forbid this. It's the Vets' information so I cannot fathom why they would not be allowed to see it in real time. Unless, or until someone with authority calls/emails me and tells me not to, I intend to continue. As for what VSOs have for a VBMS access level, you got me on that one. Level 6 was enough to get into VistA and CAPRI. Level 7 seems to allow me to view MAPS, CWINRS.exe and TIMS printer default functions I couldn't get into earlier. One thing you have to understand, all we can see is our own clients' files- no others. I'm too busy to go on safari and rattle VBMS' doors.
  14. Two things are at play here when a rating for a presumptive is involved with a SMC L loss of use determination for an effective date. 1) A claim for a herbicide presumptive can be no earlier than the date of the filed claim-claimed under any scenario. So, if you filed for Parkinson's in 1990 (long before it was added to §3.309(e)) and were denied, and you you refile for it in 2021, your effective date would be 1990. Now, be realistic. Look who you're dealing with. They don't go looking for you to see if you filed in 90. It's on you to point it out. I had to do this in 2020 for a blue water Navy guy who was late to the AO party due to Procopio. He filed for IHD, DMII and PN of the lower extremities based on radiation testing at Bimini Atoll. VA denied. I spotted it in the VBMS record after we won and called them on it. They granted but tried to give him the zeros for heroes program. Got it bumped to 60 and it's back from the BVA and awaiting a local rating in Seattle. They're doing what's called a Fenderson staged rating from 2002 to the 2019 final P&T grant. 2) According to Akles v Derwinski ( 1990?) and its later progeny, your earliest date for an SMC award for your LOU of the bilateral upper and lowers will be the date your medical records sustain an entitlement. But.... 3) The effective date for the SMC LOU of your upper and lower extremities cannot precede the award for the Parkinson's (§3.1). §3.310 allows you to go back to your successful filing in 2010 and claim it as a secondary to the Parkinson's. But... nowhere in the four corners of the claims file will you find a doctor who recited the magic incantation "Mr. White would be equally well served by amputation w/ suitable prostheses." prior to the December 2021 c&p. Thus, the date you filed for it will be awarded which was in August 2021. VA doctors are anal about not giving away the farm. But, let's assume you filed for something similar before 2021 that could have been confused with Parkinson's like restless leg syndrome, for example. One thing you could do would be to invoke §3.816(c)(1): (1) If VA denied compensation for the same covered herbicide disease in a decision issued between September 25, 1985 and May 3, 1989, the effective date of the award will be the later of the date VA received the claim on which the prior denial was based or the date the disability arose, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. A prior decision will be construed as having denied compensation for the same disease if the prior decision denied compensation for a disease that reasonably may be construed as the same covered herbicide disease for which compensation has been awarded. Minor differences in the terminology used in the prior decision will not preclude a finding, based on the record at the time of the prior decision, that the prior decision denied compensation for the same covered herbicide disease. Your query above confuses the date of award of Parkinson's with the date of diagnosis of loss of use of upper and lower extremities. They are two separate subjects.
  15. I'd add one comment to this chain. I was told I would never be granted access to my own file in VBMS back in '16. Just for S--ts and grins, I put in a VAF 21-22a on myself and bingo-I was in 4 days later. I don't think they dialed in on it. Most of us are granted what's called Level 6 clearance in VBMS. I had a glitch preventing me from seeing a client's file last month and my point of contact here in Seattle bumped me up to a Level 7 which is as high as an asst. RO director. We can see rating decision ready for promulgation. We can see all the ratings decisions, code sheets, c&p exams and the medical opinions. We have access to VHA's VistA computer records on the client. We can see the rater's notes and the rationale for deferrals of claims. We cannot change anything in VBMS but I can change things like a Veteran's current address in VACOLS or upgrade an incorrect POA in CASEFLOW. Best of all, we are given a VA Outlook email account which comes with an address book of every VA employee from a janitor to a nurse... or a DRO or a rater and his/her title, email address and telephone number. Even Denis the Menace' number and email. A tech answering the 800 Dial-a-Prayer number has about a Level 3 and is extremely limited in what they can see. Oddly, my POC here in Seattle says they (VA employees) are not granted access to CASEFLOW. Period. It's like VACOLS and only deals with BVA appeals. I've also been told we can't access VACOLS but I haven't told them I can and do frequently. We can "see" a BVA decision grant or denial roughly 2 weeks before it's published and mailed. One of these days VA will grant Vets access to this system in a very limited way. The operable phrase is "one of these days". Here's a partial screenshot of my landing page in VBMS. Each item under Document type is a .pdf we can open to view. There are approximately 3500 Attorneys accredited in this business. Most do more than just VA claims. Oddly, of the 1200-odd NOVA attorneys/agents who only do VA claims and appeals, only about 500 have VBMS access. It's not an arduous process but you have to pass a stupid idiot test for VSOs to get started. Then the fingerprints and the CBI. Then the six month wait as only the VA can make you wait. If I didn't know any better, I'd think they didn't want me nosing around in their computer. Having VBMS access is a godsend. You can react almost as quickly as they publish it. Since they postdate the letters they send out, some of my §5103 acknowledgements arrive before the date they are mailed to me or the client. That really messes with their minds. Happy New Year to all the Hadit crew and all you wonderful Vets. Spor.asknod22010414490.pdf
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use