Interesting Read On A Cue

[Philip Rogers]

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/06/16/pirkl-v-shinseki-back-to-the-future-cue/

pr

[carlie]

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/06/16/pirkl-v-shinseki-back-to-the-future-cue/

pr

That's asknod.

[Philip Rogers]

That's asknod.

Carlie - who's asknod, the writer, Gordon "Alex" Graham or Pirkl, the claimant??

pr

[carlie]

Carlie - who's asknod, the writer, Gordon "Alex" Graham or Pirkl, the claimant??

pr

The author / writer.

[Philip Rogers]

Thanks, Carlie! I've been reading his stuff, there. Most excellent!!!

pr

[Berta]

Thanks PR...a fabulous article! Ken Carpenter got well deserved Kudos in it and the writer ( the SVR guest tomorrow!!!!) ASKNOD, made this point:

“For some inexplicable reason, VA never seems to find that the manifestly different outcome transpired. Go figure. Or don’t. Such are the vagaries of ex parte justice.”

That is why some of us CUErinos have to hold their hands on that point and clearly state exactly how the established medical evidence they had at time of the alleged CUE, definitely had manifested an erroneous outcome,when the VA rendered the first decision.

Any decision being CUED often contains clues as to what the manifested outcome should have been and usually the evidence list and the extremely important Rating sheet can hold the very essence of the CUE.

If no clues are apparent in the decision than it pays to study the regs that controlled the claim ,the regs in existence at time of the alleged CUE, to see if the VA misapplied them.

It can be done!

(and to add ...regarding my SMC CUE, some of the evidence had been established by VA General Counsel.

But my RO ,when they made the decision I Cued, acted like much of that evidence didn't exist.

The established medical evidence can be anywhere at the VA,if not physically at the RO.)

[carlie]

I'd like to add something to the effect of

the established law they broke in committing the cue.