ketchup56

Congratulations, on your big win, and the will to hang in there not only for yourself, but all veterans currently in the fight for what we have earned.......

Currently with a VSO means that if in fact your appeal is currently at the BVA under their jurisdiction in washington ,dc. and you have a poa you are screwed, as far as getting them to review and submit arguments to your claim in a timely manner. You must face the reality that these vso's ALSO have their own backlog, and are one of the major cause of delay's of adjudication at the bva level. I currently have an appeal at the bva, and i do not have a VSO ,(Pro Se Veteran) but ebenefits still states my claim is with my VSO for review.When i call the bva for status they verify that my files are in fact there, but awaiting review by the veteran law judge. So i would not hold my breath waiting for adjudication anytime soon. I've been there for 15 months already. Take broncovets advise. I would stay on your vso as much as you see fit, because these people WILL forget about you, and get to your claim at their own sweet #$% time. Currently with VSO for review = In for the long haul...... JMHO

Asknod, Bronco, John, Knowledge is Power, and the information/advise that you have provided, is in my case PRICELESS... It is very important to every veteran filing a claim with va to first know what the vba will use against you to TRY to deny..(Get a copy of your c-file) Like i stated in my earlier post i'm not counting on va to do the right thing as far as assigning the CORRECT eed when current appeal is decided at bva, but you can count on me to "NEVER GIVE UP" on this eed deal. It's just to much money involved. NVLSP or Bergmann Moore are my choices for representation if bva fails to do what's right. All i can do is saddle up tight, and enjoy the bva/cavc ride, but at the end of that ride ,oohhhh so sweet....... Asknod, i have not as of yet been to the showroom,it's too early. LOL.. Once again HADIT comes through.........

Bronco No i have not gotten a decision yet, currently at bva with the vlj awaiting review. My plans are to FIRST win the claim, then see if they do the right thing and award the eed at rating (which we both know they won't) and if not then hit them with the eed claim. I believe if i were to stir the pot at this point in the claim/appeal process and bring this up now HELL would probably freeze over before i saw any final adjudication. The above read is very good info, which truly applies in my case. I know for a fact, and my evidence speaks for it'self that vba has dropped the ball on this one bigtime, and they know this already.....I also when i filed the claim in 2010, i also filed at the same time for tdiu since i have been on ssdi since oct. 2009 solely for my back disability, to protect the eed for tdiu. Vlj declared on remand that claims were intertwined.

I think i might be due an eed back to jan.1983 . I filed a claim for my back disability in 1983 while at out processing from service. At the same time i filed the claim after turning over all medical/personnel records, when time came for my medical exam, i was informed that a medical exam would NOT be performed due to they the(army) had misplaced my medical records. Exit Exam was never provided. Went on with my life, with this bad back for all these years up until apr.2010 when i filed the same claim again, claiming the same disability. BTW claim was/is for aggravation of my back, which had it's initial injury before service.(how convenient for records to come up missing). I ordered a copy of my c-file in 2010, and low and behold there it was, the original claim application dated 1/24/1983 with an end product code established by the vba as ep code110 still active and pending. Also there was, the medical determination made by the medical examiner that an exit exam would not be performed due to missing medical records.(seems to me all the more reason to give an exam you think). Anyway's the claim filed in 2010 is now at bva been remanded to the amc and back to bva awaiting review by the vlj. Idiot's at the regional level can"t seem to grasp the fact that the burden is on them to disprove NO aggravation of a pre existing condition that was noted clearly on my entrance exam physical sf 88 that i provided.(seems really onerous on the governments part considering no service medical records to form a baseline of disability). There was no final adjudication on the original claim filed in 1983, no notifications to me about a status,exam nothing, it just sat there all these years until i submitted the claim again in 2010 which since then has been given an end product ep code 020.(reopened claim). Came across this CHARLES V. SHENSEKI and i believe this decision would apply in my situation. I also researched vba end product codes and if i'm interperting this correctly this claim should have an effective date back to 1983. Need some of the.. HADIT wisdom on this and it is kindly appreciated in advance......... JOEL

Nothing but more BS from the vba. This does nothing but help eliminate old claims backlog to CREATE a bigger backlog of APPEALS at the regional, and bva level of appeals. If you currently have a nod from a previous denial that's waiting for review by dro process, you are shit out of luck, as far as any adjudication anytime soon. This was already done within the last few years, in where all appeals at the regional level were put on the backburner to complete or eliminate the agent orange cases backlog. (at least at the oakland office it did). What i see coming is still quicker BAD denial's, and a longer backlog of appeals just so to make vba's CLAIMS numbers look better to congress.. Read this initiative closely it mentions not a damn thing about existing APPEALS inventory. There is also a backlog at the bva which never get's addressed in these hearings,meeting's etc..... Rob peter just to pay paul.....JMHO

Congrats, and take care. Also now that you are not working, and you have good evidence of that,and if your service connected conditions are the sole conditions your ssa disabilities are, apply for TDIU NOW based on this new award , REGARDLESS of your current 40% va rating. They will bring you to the required percentage to be eligible if warranted. Again congrats to you......

" Less likely as not likely" medical opinions will just about always get you an denial on claims based on direct service connection claims, unless you get an IMO to rebut it. However if this is a claim based on aggravation of a pre existing or an already service connected condition "less likely as not" medical opinions would not suffice to clear the "clear and unmistakable" evidence standard to win service connection for that aggravation claim. Clear and unmistakable evidence standards are more of an onerous task for the vba to overcome, than the preponderence of evidence standard such as," less likely as not, at least as likely as not, etc... Not sure what your claim is based on....

J Basser I have been smelling that same stench you are smelling now since finding out files went to litigation support. (cavc attorney's giving advise or direction to lower bva attorneys on how to screw this pro se veteran). Since iv'e been here already for awhile now i'm going to ride it out and wait for a decision from the board, then get an attorney if a denial was in order. If i could get an pro bono attorney to take this case now i'd let them have it now in a heartbeat. Any recommendations would be surely appreciated.....Docket No. 12-05 464...

J.Basser you are dead on point here. This is the same information i found about litigation support when i did my research. Remands from the amc back to bva have NO business at the litigation support unit, before going before the cavc. It's illegal. I plan on persuing this as pro se until bva either grants or denies, then it's on to a good attorney that specializes in va claims. Hell i myself right now can give a few reasons and basis for a remand at the cavc level. If i can do this i know damn well a good attorney can. LOL. My claim/appeal is a carbon copy of the final decision in Charles v. Shenseki, 587 F.3d. 1318(fed.cir.2009). Only exception mine is a claim for service connection for aggravation of a pre existing back condition. VA failed to act on this original claim dated 1/1983, and never gave a final adjudication one way or another. All this was in my c-file i ordered in 4/2010 when i refiled this claim. Claim even had the original va EP CODE 110. Docket # is 12-05464 which really does not state to much at all.

For me, this bs goes in one ear right back out the other ear......

I do not believe at all that i'm reading to much into this. It is what it is. What your'e missing is the fact as stated in my original post that ,i was in the status of 'currently with vlj' since 02/2012 and now all of a sudden my case/files is awaiting a review by a vso. I completely understand the va using the status coding to try to fit pro se appellants etc... What i don't understand is what has changed from 02/2012 to 02/2013 to warrant a change of the coding 'currently with vlj' status to the current status coding of 'currently with vso'? When i read posts such as Qwikstings post above there is some reason to be concerned. My appeal upon return from the amc on remand ended up in the litigation support unit at the bva, and when i call bva no one can tell me why it went there. I know why it's there (vba failed to adjudicate this claim back in 1983).

I have been at the bva on appeals for awhile now waiting my turn for review, and the whole time iv'e been waiting, my status on ebenefits has been 'Files Currently With Law Judge For Review'. Been off line for awhile thought i'd check my status on the ole "ebeneshits" site. As of 02/14/2013, my status has changed to 'Files Currently With Vso For Review. Some here might say at least there is movement right? Only problem with this is i'm a PRO-SE appellant... Again another reason not to totally rely on ebeneshits for reliable information,status etc...Just more unnecessary work i need to do to make damn sure my case is not sitting in limbo waiting for a review by some vso that should never happen in the first place. Bva is starting to scare me with these screwups...

I have been arguing with the va on this reg. close to 3 years now. They refuse to address this reg. with my claim. My Enlistment entry exam stated clearly i had a long history of back and neck pains BEFORE service due to a head on collision with a bus before service. Was treated numerous times over a seven year span in service for same back issues, same issues have been treated, and documented as chronic back pain in medical records after service, and while were at it, i was put out to pasture by the ssa for quess what?? Yes. I even in rebuttal testimony using webster's definition of "CHRONIC" led them by the hand, like you would a small child, and quess what ladies and gentlemen? Still refused to even whisper on this reg. My claims are for aggravation of my pre-existing back condition, also in which vba "MUST" also address the chronic provision of this reg.3.303(b) as another way of obtaining on a direct basis of service connection. They have used every piece of Post Hoc Bs they can to keep from addressing these facts, and how they relate to this reg. Currently at bva with the veteran law judge. Hope they can read and comprehend evidence.....

BVA remanded to amc......

I have an appeal that was remanded back to amc in may 2012. Upon development of the remand by amc they accomplished the required tasks ordered by bva and denied the claim and issued a ssoc. The same day that amc denied the appeal, they reopened the same appeal and listed it as an open administrative review claim, reasons being "status has changed, and new evidence received". BTW I did not submit any new evidence. Today i called the bva to see if my files had been returned to bva, and was told that my files are with the Litigation Support team at the bva requested by someone from the appeals management center. My question is has any hadit member had this happen in this sequence AND what is the function of the litigation support team? I"m thinking that someone has finally read these bogus soc/ssoc's reasons and basis for denials and finally decided to get a legal point of view. (va calling cue on themselves). Any input or thought's appreciated.

"Good looking out"........

What would you tell your children that are old enough to do "IF" the draft was to become real again???????

Today i received from the amc the most insane reason and basis for a denial anyone could ever imagine. So insane it did not even faze me. These people at the amc can't read or comprehend s@##$%*it. Can't wait until bva get's this case again. Denied s/c based on ssa records from 30yrs. after military service. What a joke. At the same time they denied it, they also put the appeal back as an open claim and put it as an "ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW CLAIM". I'm thinking this is a reason to keep this claim/appeal at the ro/amc level as a stall tactic, as administrative reviews are submitted to VACO ONLY after the VSCM gives approval and signs off on the request for admin.review. In order for these types of requests initiated by ro personell someone had to challenge or have a difference of opinion on the decision that was written. Anyway's my question is has anyone had this happen in their appeal adjudication, and how did it work out??? I have no intentions on letting my appeal linger at this place, and come first thing monday morning, i'm going to fax back the waiver of aoj so as to get away from this place. I have a docket date of mar. 12 so maybe by the end of this year or early next year my case should be heard by bva. "Deny then open the same claim again.What a freaking joke"..............

Yes i did submit all award letters directly to varo 2 years ago and when bva got the case they remanded it back to the amc to order ssa records and re adjudicate claim again with consideration of the new evidence(ssa records). My ssa award is solely for what i'm claiming sc for. As of today ebenefits is showing my appeal as closed, BUT at the same time they open a what they call a "Administrative Review Claim". From what i'm getting is these reviews are done by the higher up's at the varo/amc. Also no ssoc was issued when appeal was closed out today according to my ebenefits. Any input is appreciated, as i don't know what to make of this. DOCKET NO. 12-05 464......

Well someone at bva caught this (no ssoc issused before returning to board) and bva is allowing files to be returned to the amc to correct this error and ordered the amc to adjudicate as instructed. This was done on jan. 10, 2013. Today i see on ebenefits that amc has as of 5-16-2012 (the date of first remand to amc) listed my claim status as an "Administrative review claim". Reason review was requested was because as stated in appeal updates my "status has changed" after receipt of "new evidence" (ssa records). Still researching "administration review claims" ordered by raters at vba. Not really sure what to make of this. Anyone ever had this happen in their claims process?

You said you sent your evidence to the AMC... Your files are now at the BVA and this is where you should have sent your evidence to with the waiver of aoj and revocation of poa....

Did you send the waiver of aoj with this evidence? You do not want this to go back to amc at this point.

Looks like they gave more weight to the c&p examiners opinion for the simple fact that they had access to your COMPLETE c-file and your pcp physician only had your vamc treatment records. Challenge the medical opinion of the c&p examiner on the statement they made about you not having a current diagnosis of gerd. Anything to get another remand, so to get what'"s needed to win. Was everything you submitted to the amc listed as evidence on the ssoc you received? If not challenge that. That's ground for remand also. Looks like they gave more weight to the c&p examiners opinion for the simple fact that they had access to your COMPLETE c-file and your pcp physician only had your vamc treatment records. Challenge the medical opinion of the c&p examiner on the statement they made about you not having a current diagnosis of gerd. Anything to get another remand, so to get what'"s needed to win. Was everything you submitted to the amc listed as evidence on the ssoc you received? If not challenge that. That's ground for remand also.