Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

 Click To Ask Your VA Claims Question 

 Click To Read Current Posts  

  Read Disability Claims Articles 
View All Forums | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users |  Search  | Rules 

  • homepage-banner-2024-2.png

  • donate-be-a-hero.png

  • 0

Is the VA changing evidence requirements with RAMP?

Rate this question


63Charlie

Question

 

I just received an invitation letter from the VA to opt in to the new RAMP.

 

What is the VA's definition of "clear and convincing evidence"?

What is the VA's definition of "new and relevant evidence"?

The above-styled VA terminology was indicated to be applicable for the Supplemental Claim Lane, and the Higher-Level Review Lane.

 

It appears that the VA may be dangling a carrot in front of veterans that are stuck with long waits on appeal by promising them a faster resolution of their appeal if they opt in to RAMP.

 

The down side, from my perspective, appears that the VA may have changed the evidentiary requirements if you opt in to RAMP.

Before, if the evidence was in equipoise, the tie (should) goes to the veteran.

 

 

Edited by 63Charlie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 5
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Days

Top Posters For This Question

5 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

I've been of the opinion and it's my experience that the VA doesn't examine "Clear and Convincing Evidence" anyway. I received the invite too and shortly after doing nothing my remand came back as denied. So here we go again.

Sgt. Wilky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
  • Moderator

According to a reputable law firm anyone can now opt in to Ramp if they are in appeals.  

My attorney advised "against" me opting in for RAMP, but that may not be the same for you.   Here is why:

I have appeals going on in both the CAVC and the BVA at the present.  (I really dont know why the board seperated these, but I appealed the effective date of the board decision to the CAVC and am still waiting on a decision on SMC S from the BVA.)

He says it would not be in my best interest because, if I understand this, my election to RAMP automatically withdraws my appeal to the CAVC and I dont want to do that.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
  • Moderator

They are not changing evidence requirements in my opinion.  You see, of appeals to the board, "about" 30 percent are awarded and another 40 percent are remanded.  This means there are errors in about 70 percent of the appeals to the board.  

Of those remanded, many will eventually be awarded.  

Apparently, about 57 percent of RAmp APPEALS ARE AWARDED.  I dont like the hamster wheel of multiple remands.  

I also understand RAMP appeals go out quickly..in 120 days or less.  

Berta and I have noticed many times VARO decision makers do not "read" our evidence.  It was there and they just "top sheeted it" and never read it.  This is not completely the decision makers fault.  If your file is 1500 pages long and the decision maker has an hour to read your file, almost no one can read 1500 pages that fast.  

This problem may be helped with electronic claims.  For example one could search your file for "at least as likely as not" and boom..find that nexus in seconds and not hours.  

I think with RAMP your claim will be done electronically so they can quickly find out if you have a nexus.  

As Alex pointed out, VSO's often let Vets appeal for years, and they dont know either that the Vet does not have the required nexus.  Its crazy.  

I suggest you check your file for the Caluza elements, and if all 3 are there, you could consider RAMP.  

In my first 2002 denial, I had all 3  nexus, diagnosis, in service event..and I won it at the board.  It should have never been denied.  But that is not unusual..at least 70 percent of VARO decisions have errors.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
  • HadIt.com Elder

 

Clear and Convincing Evidence

 

A medium level of burden of proof which is a more rigorous standard to meet than the preponderance of the evidence standard, but a less rigorous standard to meet than proving evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to meet the standard and prove something by clear and convincing evidence, a party must prove that it is substantially more likely than not that it is true. This standard is employed in both civil and criminal trials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
  • Moderator

Great point, Buck!  

I think that VA did not "change the evidence" but to get a quick favorable decision through ramp, it would help if you had "clear and convincing evidence". 

However, when you appeal to the Board, the Board has to use the benefit of the doubt standard, which is the easiest of all to meet.  

Edited by broncovet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use