Jump to content

  • fundraising.jpegGive a financial gift to help with the upkeep of HadIt.com. HadIt.com is NOT a non profit. Gifts are not tax deductible, they are just gifts. 

  • Advertisemnt

  • This is a public website. Do not post personal identifying information, such as real name, ssn, email address. If you upload documents make sure to blackout your personal information.


    VA Disability Claims Discussion Forums - Welcome to the community!

    Popular Forums

    Ask a question | Search | View Latest Posts and More  | All VA Disability Claims Forums

    Help support Hadit.com https://community.hadit.com/donate/make-donation Attention: Donations are NOT tax deductible

  • Our picks

    • So, my lawyer sent an IME w/ IMO and filed a supplemental claim solely for IU on March 20.

      It was closed on March 25, and va.gov just states claim closed and nothing more.

      Hopefully, I get good news.
    • Thanks for the responses. I am filing a new claim but will continue pushing the NOD. My new question is it stated in law or statute that if during the claims process the VA finds conditions that could possibly rate service connection that was not originally filed for, the VA will “invite” the veteran to file the claim on the claims form. Reason I ask is that my private DBQs, NEXUS letter, and even the VA nurse examiner's DBQs lists bilateral upper radiculopathy as present. If it is written in statute or official guidance it might qualify as a CUE. Just looking at all angles. 
    • Everyone needs to read our stories so they can try to avoid these screws by the va...
      Thank you, everyone contributes, good or bad, all of our stories will help others, and yes, they have been stated by others for ages, over and over, but we just get depressed, and the time turns into years as they screw us..

      Welcome to the department of Veterans Affairs!  I can honestly say, "been there, done that".  

      Even after winning my tdiu in 2017, it was back to the drawing board as VA hornswaggeld my effective date.  (but of course).  

      I finally won my tdiu effective date in Feb. 2020, 18 years after I first applied!!!  

      Here is how they managed to drag mine out 18 years:

      1.  They never adjuticated my decison until 2009, where they called it "moot".  

      2.  I appealed, said it was not moot because it could result in an earlier effective date and SMC S under Bradley vs Peake.  The judge agreed with me, and ordered VARO consider me for extra schedular TDIU, under 4.16 b.  

      3.  The VARO piddles with  the remand for 3 years, and hoped I wouldnt notice.  I noticed and raised cane until they adjuticated it.  (denied of course).  

      4.  Finally, after the baord denied again, I hired a lawyer, in 2014, and appealed to CAVC.   

      5.  The lawyer won a remand, got an IMO and I won tdiu in 2017.  But at the wrong effective date, even after 15 years.  

      6.  I hired another lawyer, Chris Attig, and appealed the effective date, and he won a remand for effective date.  Trip 2 to CAVC.  

      7.  Mr. Attig won a remand, and advised me to get another IMO.  

      8.  The board awarded my earlier effective date in Feb. 2020.  

           So, I do have advice fighting VA for TDIU, they fought and fought and I hung in there and won it all.  

      ADVICE:  Dont count on VA, they could easily throw your fax in the trash.  Follow up!  
    • "Keep in mind that due to the nature of the digestive system, VA would most likely combined your conditions and pay you at the higher rate to avoid pyramiding".    That is one of my main gripes.  They are only listing the GERD with hiatal hernia and ignoring the rest of my gastric issues such as the gastritis which I also had in service.  I included it in my 2007 request for increase and again in 2019.  The info from the civilian dr that stated I had the gastritis with H pylori was not even provided to the examiner in 2007, nor did he have my VA health records. The 2019 request was based on an EGD I had AT THE VA in Jan 2019.   I filed for an increase 6 Mar and they did an ACE on 27 Mar and downgraded to noncompensable on that date.  The only reason I was thinking CUE:  38 CFR § 3.326 - Under Examinations  it states (c) Provided that it is otherwise adequate for rating purposes, a statement from a private physician may be accepted for rating a claim without further examination".  
    • Enough has been said on this topic. This forum is not the proper forum for an attorney and former client to hash out their problems. Please take this offline

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. GB. I would think the 15% are claims won first timers or appeal/.but 15% is not what they promised when they went over to the RAMP. So yeah its better than it was in the past but 15% better? not very good in my opinion. But then again we never will know for sure?
  3. Today
  4. Yeah, im not discounting that. Im just explaining the more obvious issues I see with private docs and dbq's with regards to completeness of the claim and whether its the right information, or enough of it.
  5. Even VA C & P examiners screw up DBQs, BVA agreed that I have had multiple C & P examiners fail to properly fill out DBQs yet I was denied for them. Even though I had given them all the information the C & P examiners needed. BVA approved my claim and found that my lay statement was credible due to my treatment records (progress notes) reports.
  6. Yes I was clarifying for posterity and other readers. I've worked with vets in real life that think just having a signed DBQ is enough. Its not. In any case its rare to come across a claim where the doctor provided enough rationale just in the records to not require a DBQ in order to go to rating. It happens, but its rare. The DBQ tells them exactly what they need to provide (based on statute in M21) in order to be complete enough for rating.
  7. Tbird I posted this here because when I go to fanaticbooks post it won't come up when you click on it.
  8. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Veterans Benefits Administration Washington, D.C. 20420 January 6, 2010 Director (00/21) All VA Regional Offices and Centers In Reply Refer To: 211B Fast Letter 10-02 SUBJ: Implementation of Board of Veterans’ Appeals Decisions Purpose This fast letter provides clarification of the existing procedural guidance for implementation of Board of Veterans’ Appeals Decisions. The instructions provided in this fast letter supersede all prior guidance on this issue. Background It has come to the attention of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) and the Compensation and Pension Service that there is inconsistent processing of claims involving implementation of BVA decisions with partial favorable findings. It was determined that some regional offices (ROs) were delaying implementation of these BVA partial grants until expiration of the 120-day period within which a veteran may appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). Delayed implementation of favorable BVA decisions is inconsistent with the Department’s long standing pro-veteran position and unnecessarily delays payment of benefits to the claimant. Procedures Complete Grants and Partial Awards ROs are required to review all files returning from BVA to determine the type of action to be taken. ROs must expeditiously implement favorable decisions rendered by BVA in all cases, including those decisions that may also contain unfavorable findings subject to appeal with CAVC. For processing purposes, a partial grant or an increased evaluation less than the schedular maximum available is considered a “favorable decision.” Partial grants rendered by BVA are subject to expedited processing. Although a claimant may elect to appeal the evaluation assigned by BVA and continue to pursue an increased or total evaluation for the same disability before CAVC, the partial grant should still be implemented immediately. In many instances, the claims file will not be required to complete the grant or partial grant of benefits ordered by BVA. If a decisionmaker needs the claims file to accurately comply with the BVA mandate, he or she should follow the instructions regarding locked CAVC files provided in M21-1MR, section I.5.J.48.e. Denials Denials of entitlement to benefits rendered by BVA should continue to be processed in accordance with the procedures outlined in M21-1MR, sections I. 5.G.33.c and d. Questions Questions concerning this fast letter should be e-mailed to VAVBAWAS/CO/ 21FL.
  9. Hi Everyone I filed for an increase about a year ago and the VA sent me to a C&P exam, the examiner came back and said that my condition had no change. But the VA sent me a letter saying that I was going to be reduced from 70% to 60% but I had to 60 days to submit new evidence to show that I should keep my current percentage. Now we have the COVID-19 outbreak and the Dr. that was going to give me the exam to prove that my condition hasn't changed isn't seeing any patients until June, my 60 day window expires on May 5th. So does anyone here know if the VA will give an extension on this because of the current situation that's going on with COVID-19.
  10. It took the AOJ 4 years to do a DRO de novo review under Legacy. I opted in to the AMA in 4/19. All issues were placed on the evidence docket. I initially had 25 issues on appeal. A VLJ at the BVA fully granted two of my issues on appeal, and that just happened this week. My 100% rating was granted an EED to the date I initially filed a claim for a single condition. I ONLY have 23 more separate issues before the BVA on the evidence docket that await a decision. Curious myself as to when another BVA decision will come. If the VA would have done the right thing to begin with.... we wouldn't be at war now.
  11. Broken, please read my post. what do you think I meant by "give a plausible medical rationale." By giving a plausible medical rationale simply means to explain how the conditions are related/connected.
  12. Here's the thing, you are not completely correct- the doctor has to say why, with medical rationale, WHY they feel the condition is worsened, or is SC. They can't just say "At least as likely as not....." and call it good. Most denials are due to doctors -private, contracted or VA, not following directions for whatever reason. Raters are not doctors. If its not on the form they can't render an opinion on it. If its not backed up with more than the doctors opinion, it can't be rated either.
  13. They will still be used internally, and are still valid as of now from private docs UNLESS its one of a few types. TBI/Sexual Trauma, PTSD exams can't be done by private docs anyway, so that's not changing. Many private docs do the DBQ and don't include rationale if doing an exam for SC, so the DBQ is invalid already because they didnt submit the 'why' behind it at the same time. If you are using a DBQ for an increase then the rationale for it is already established and you are just using the DBQ to document current treatment/level of disability. So, short answer yes, still valid, until such time as an M21 change is made. OIG didnt' make them invalid, but approx 50% of the ones analyzed in their study from several RO's across the country were not done correctly, completely, or provided with rationale at the same time, so they were not valid for rating. That is why so many vets get referred for exams they thought they already did with their private doctors. Its not a plot, its because the doctors don't always fill out the form correctly or provide valid medical reasoning WITH the DBQ. Just having them fill it out and sign it is not enough.
  14. Here is the thing, VA will use just about any excuse to deny a veterans claim. IMHO, VA will only accept DBQs prior to the discontinued date which is around March 15, 2020. Any DBQs after that date is a real crap shoot. You actually don't need a DBQ as long as your doctor states that your condition is as least likely as not caused by military service or service connected disability and give a plausible medical rationale.
  15. The VA released this communication saying that the BVA has issued 52000 decisions or 15% more than last year for the first 6 months. They have been reporting that they are banging more out, but I wonder if the % of favorable decisions are getting better or worse. Fast denials only make a difference if the veteran is going to appeal. https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/suite
  16. Are they not accepting DBQ's or are they merely removing them for the website?
  17. dodger. Too may possibilities to speculate. Not worth it. If you don't hear from your VSO in a reasonable amount od time, put a call into him/her. Hopefully, they have VBMS so you can maybe get more details.
  18. Berta, I was expecting a low ball number. But to my great surprize, they were right on. I'm thinking, maybe, just maybe, they might be thinking of a CUE, because the evidence was solid from the start. Anyway, today, maybe not tomorrow, I am pleased with the VA.
  19. agentorange@nvlsp.org They reviewed our decisions as to making sure the EED was correct.
  20. WOW that is great!!!!!!I hope they give you the correct EED, and if not contact NVLSP.
  21. When a claim is denied and you file a NOD, why is it, the appeal(s) does not show up in va.gov? I'm not talking about how long the appeal process takes, I'm talking about NOT being able to see an acknowledgment from va.gov/VARO that they've received your appeal(s). Yes, I always mail VA stuff priority mail with signature request.
  22. Three weeks ago I sent in new and relevant evidence to the VA to support my claim increase for a single disability via my VSO. I had Dr. notes, a Private dr. filled out DBQ, and VA Dr. notes... I just received an update on va.gov saying my case closed and to contact my VSO for further details? I have an email sent to my VSO as of a few minutes ago. does that seem a little to fast?
  23. This is good advice. The exams are done by the Examiner based on how they were entered into the original request from VA VSR. IF the VSR did not include all contentions. for example, then the examiner has no idea that it is needed- they work off the request as submitted. A missing DBQ or contention can be corrected, but it takes longer overall if its not done right the first time. The contentions used to create the exam request come from whatever you submit to VA. It doesn't have to be medical terminology, but you have to be specific enough so that the VSR knows what to assign you. If you have having PTSD issues, for example, say that, don't just say that you are having depression, etc- that's a separate type of exam. PTSD for example is routed to an expedite group that pretty much only works with PTSD and Sexual Trauma. If you are claiming an increase for PTSD but say 'depression, etc' it won't get routed correctly. If you suspect something that you have that is not SC, then say that, because otherwise the person on the other end won't know to include it for an exam for it.
  1. Load more activity
  • Advertisemnt

  • search-002.png
  • Most Common VA Disabilities Claimed for Compensation:   


  • Advertisemnt

  • Latest News

  • Advertisemnt

  • Ads

  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines