Philip Rogers

I don't think you get hearing aids for one ear. If you need hearing aids they come in pairs. They told me I need to wear both for them to work. pr

I think you could still do it based on a CUE. M-21 is just the VA's instructions as to how to apply title 38, which is the VA's interpretation of the 38 US Code. jmo pr

I think broncovet meant go to your VARO and check your address not as he stated: "Find out the address VA has on file. Is it your current address?? Dont just assume..go to your VAMC and see if the address is correct." You should be sure that both the VARO and the VAMC have your correct address. pr

Personally, I would do it myself, as it looks relatively simple. I rarely see any need for a VSO, as most I've seen aren't worth anything(except maybe, Meg, who posts here, she seems to really care). pr

Are you sure on that IU?? One of my friends, who was IU for just over 10 yrs died, a couple of yrs ago and his wife got DIC, within 45 days, and none of the SC conditions were listed as cause of death (cod). So I'm pretty sure I counts towards the 100%. pr

So, I receive a brown envelope from the BVA today. My appeal for smc "s" award, inferred, dating back to 4/89 is due for a decision. It was remanded by the CAVC, twice, to the BVA for a decision, where it went to the AMC and then back to the BVA. Bergmann & Moore (B&M), LLC, law firm, won my remand, at the CAVC. They, B&M, sent me my records and said that I should not need them anymore. The BVA sent me a letter about 3 months ago requesting any new evidence I might have, within 60 days, or if none received they would decide. Now, the BVA, sends me this notice stating, that since I had previously had B&M, at the CAVC, did I want them to represent me, here, at the BVA. And if not do I want another representative (VSO) or lawyer . . . or did I want to represent myself, "Pro Se." Please sign here and submit within 30 days or we'll decide without. I knew the envelope was "too thin" for a decision, especially since it dates back to April, 1989. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!! Guess I'll contact B&M and see what they say. pr

Your VSO would probably submit something along this line for your increase: "The veterans claims his condition has gotten worse." He/she would probably add some stupid line that they should expedite your claim and award you all that you deserve. jmo I'd go w/the NOD. pr

He's probably eligible for some type of Aid & Attendence, as your spouse. Probably a couple hundred a month. pr

I'd just keep on keepin' on. No need to rock the boat as he's done nothing wrong. I'd put some money aside just in case but I really think he has nothing to worry about. jmo pr

I would submit a NOD, on the recent decision, especially since the MRI was done during the process of that claim. Your VSO is an idiot!!!!!! See how they sort of work for the VA, by giving you bad info, that could cost you retro. jmo pr

I think he's safe, especially since he had a lawyer. I see no reason to cause him any worry J. jmo pr

Personally, I think you're safe, since you are no longer working. I would just wait it out and save some money, just in case. jmo pr

If he meets the criteria for blindness he should get SSDI, also the kidney failure is an automatic for SSDI. He should get medicare also, but that takes being disabled 2 yrs, first to get it. pr

They frequently make that mistake, regarding left and right. You should be able to prove the CUE but be sure you have follow up records from after discharge to submit w/your claim. jmo pr

Gagetown, Canada, is a Canadian military base. He would need to prove US military service there and exposure to agent orange, while there. See this link: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/03/04/soldiers-trained-at-gagetown-canada-exposed-to-agent-orange/ pr

Correct, extra-scheduler ratings are rare and the fact that they are sending it to DC, means the claim has some merit, in their eyes. pr

I believe your friend needs a 100% or TDIU rating, plus the 60%, for an "s" award, unless he is in fact housebound. His, $100, smc award is a "k" award for ED. The VA uses the combined ratings table (CRT) to total their percentages, not regular addition. jmo pr

I agree w/basser, they almost always order C&P's. On the sexual assault you should look for changes in behavior after it happened. Very often the injured party starts having abnormal behavior, such as showing up late, art 15's/captain's masts, AWOL, disobeying orders, etc.. jmo pr

I agree w/Berta, about the extra-schedular rating. The problem will be the wait. I helped a vet, 10 yrs back, get an extra-schedular rating and it took about 30 months. jmo pr

It will be a comp (c&p) exam, however because you are 55yo, there should be no exam. I'd send them a letter requesting P&T, because you are 55yo and there has been no improvement. I don't know about the abroad thing. pr

It is possible, however the VA is the VA, so I am somewhat doubtful. Best thing to do is ride it out as best you can. I know it's hard but unfortunately that's the system. I lost my house, my marriage and had to file bankruptcy during my claim and that was back in the 90's, so hang in there. jmo pr

I would file for the TDIU and not count on them, just in case. pr

I also believe that a claimant can be eligible for an "s" during a 100% convalescent rating period provided they meet the 100+60 rule. It can also be received during a temporary TDIU award. Please post any regulation you may have that corrects me. Thanks!! pr

As for the Kent cigarettes and mesothelioma, my Mom died probably as a result of smoking them. I hear the manufacturer generally settles w/o accepting liability. I'm just waiting for me to get it. I started smoking Kents, in 1955, by stealing them, from those little dishes they kept them in, on the coffee tables, back in the day. She and my father worked for Kent, then, and Kent would either give them free cigarettes or sold them at cost to employees, so they could share them w/their friends, when they entertained, at home. Nice company!!! Fortunately I quit in 1977 but still need to watch my lungs. All the manufacturers knew the dangers but felt the profit was well worth the loss. Mesothelioma is fatal w/no cure. jmo pr

"The standard shouldn’t be to prove it was over 50% responsible for the disease. The standard should be that it is more likely than not that it contributed." Those two sentences makes no sense to me. Isn't "more likely than not, 51% or more?" It should be "as least likely as not" meaning 50/50 and the win goes to the claimant. jmo pr