FormerMember

Sorry about that. I had to look it up to refresh my memory. My brain box is filled with new info I'm studying for my agent's exam and sometimes it short circuits. Here's the info on the VA Caregiver Platform http://www.va.gov/purchasedcare/docs/pubfiles/factsheets/factsheet_11-02.pdf Looks like pay ranges from around $435/month on up to mid-tier ($1,088/month) with a possible high tier of $1,740ish per month. Total, utter disability a la paraplegia/helplessness would rate the SMC T award. To address SMC S and L, the current S amount is $3,415.74/month for a married Vet plus comp. for any rugrats. SMC L is currently $3,779.09/mo. with no children. Add about $120 for the first child and $80 for each additional one under 18. Here's the link for SMC amounts- http://www.benefits.va.gov/COMPENSATION/resources_comp02.asp Investigating further, I note you would not be entitled to the Caregiver program if you were awarded SMC L based on Aid and Attendance as that would constitute pyramiding under 4.14. Again, I stress this is a bridge entitlement that is designed to reintroduce you to society on a temporary financial basis. If you exhibit any ability to work or volunteer for a food bank, say sayonara to the check. Likewise, if your spouse takes any part-time employment that would cut into the allotted caregiver hours, kiss it goodbye. Each SMC K award is $103.23 ( above and beyond SMC L) and you could technically have any number of these up until you reach SMC O. If you were awarded two full 100% schedular awards (not TDIUs), you would advance from L to M. If you only had 50% or more disabilities such as the migraine issue, and were awarded L for A&A, you would be advanced to L 1/2 which currently pays $3,966.07. plus the SMC K. Remember that loss of bladder or bowel control is also a prime ingredient for SMC L. This puts you in a different category as well. If you qualify for two of the ingredients for L,M, N, or O and one of them is A&A, you can advance automatically to R1 for $7,414.70/ month plus kids. Entitlement is a dance with getting good nexus letters from doctors as to your disabilities denoted in minute detail. SMC is one of those gifts that requires you fulfill all the disabilities to qualify-not just some. VA doctors tend to downplay the severity of disabilities. This is why I prefer objective civilian assessments which are not driven by VA politics.

I'm not sure if you realize this but if you are being paid the SMC T with your wife as caregiver, you are already receiving SMC L in essence- and then some. The award of SMC T is higher than L and encompasses Aid and Attendance. The requirements for L are (b) Ratings under 38 U.S.C. 1114(l). The special monthly compensation provided by 38 U.S.C. 1114(l) is payable for anatomical loss or loss of use of both feet, one hand and one foot, blindness in both eyes with visual acuity of 5/200 or less or being permanently bedridden or so helpless as to be in need of regular aid and attendance. (1) Extremities. The criteria for loss and loss of use of an extremity contained in paragraph (a)(2) of this section are applicable. (2) Eyes, bilateral. 5/200 visual acuity or less bilaterally qualifies for entitlement under 38 U.S.C. 1114(l). However, evaluation of 5/200 based on acuity in excess of that degree but less than 10/200 (§ 4.83 of this chapter), does not qualify. Concentric contraction of the field of vision beyond 5 degrees in both eyes is the equivalent of 5/200 visual acuity. (3) Need for aid and attendance. The criteria for determining that a veteran is so helpless as to be in need of regular aid and attendance are contained in §3.352(a). (4) Permanently bedridden. The criteria for rating are contained in § 3.352(a). Where possible, determinations should be on the basis of permanently bedridden rather than for need of aid and attendance (except where 38 U.S.C. 1114(r) is involved) to avoid reduction during hospitalization where aid and attendance is provided in kind. 3.352 for A&A: § 3.352 Criteria for determining need for aid and attendance and “permanently bedridden.” (a) Basic criteria for regular aid and attendance and permanently bedridden. The following will be accorded consideration in determining the need for regular aid and attendance (§ 3.351(c)(3): inability of claimant to dress or undress himself (herself), or to keep himself (herself) ordinarily clean and presentable; frequent need of adjustment of any special prosthetic or orthopedic appliances which by reason of the particular disability cannot be done without aid (this will not include the adjustment of appliances which normal persons would be unable to adjust without aid, such as supports, belts, lacing at the back, etc.); inability of claimant to feed himself (herself) through loss of coordination of upper extremities or through extreme weakness; inability to attend to the wants of nature; or incapacity, physical or mental, which requires care or assistance on a regular basis to protect the claimant from hazards or dangers incident to his or her daily environment. “Bedridden” will be a proper basis for the determination. For the purpose of this paragraph “bedridden” will be that condition which, through its essential character, actually requires that the claimant remain in bed. The fact that claimant has voluntarily taken to bed or that a physician has prescribed rest in bed for the greater or lesser part of the day to promote convalescence or cure will not suffice. It is not required that all of the disabling conditions enumerated in this paragraph be found to exist before a favorable rating may be made. The particular personal functions which the veteran is unable to perform should be considered in connection with his or her condition as a whole. It is only necessary that the evidence establish that the veteran is so helpless as to need regular aid and attendance, not that there be a constant need. Determinations that the veteran is so helpless, as to be in need of regular aid and attendance will not be based solely upon an opinion that the claimant's condition is such as would require him or her to be in bed. They must be based on the actual requirement of personal assistance from others. SMC T is awarded on a temporary basis only at several levels (R1 and R2). The highest level of T is the same as R2 or $8,318. 95 per month. You cannot pyramid SMC L on top of SMC T. While it might sound like VA is paying your wife the T, the check is drawn on your entitlement. Eventually, VA is going to find you "better" and take the SMC T away. At that point, if you can establish entitlement to L using any of the scenarios listed above from 3.350(b), you would be awarded it along with any SMC K awards you qualify for as well.

When your appeal was remanded by the VLJ at the BVA, it lacked development or some oversight that prevented the judge from deciding it. S/he sent it out on remand to the BVA's private RO (the AMC) to cure the defect. They repaired it but it remained denied so they attached a SSOC and sent it back up to the VLJ for readjudication. What then appears to have happened is that someone (your VSO rep?) asked for a Board Hearing or you checked off on box 10 b, c or d on the Form 9 back when you filed it. The staff attorney for the VLJ just noticed it. You now will probably have to wait another six months to a year for a Board hearing for the requested hearing to be scheduled at your local RO. That would only be if you asked for a video conference. If you want a live travel board hearing, it may take 16-18 months. After the hearing, the VLJ will render his decision. That will probably be a year or more following the hearing date. These estimates might be a little generous with the huge backlog at the BVA these days.

Once again, LOD saves the day. VA likes to revisit LOD determinations and try to "insert" willful misconduct as in your case. You covered yourself quite well with the reports from the police and the recall info on the ignition switch. Basically, the BVA VLJ chose not to berate the VA in general, and your rater/DRO personally for misreading 3.301. By using the "They forgot the SOC." argument, it accomplished the same thing without smearing additional mud on their face. Winning is everything. When the money's in the bank, who cares why? You now need to focus on the next phase and bring the same determination and knowledge to bear. VA has actually learned a valuable lesson. They now know you aren't some ignorant chucklehead and the USS Mayflower didn't just drop anchor outside your front door last night. The thicker your c-file, the more VA respects you for persevering. If you do it without a VSO or use an attorney, they really sit up and take notice.

Jfrei, Allow me to discuss OGC for the others. Throwing out that term will confuse them if they are unfamiliar with it. OGC stands for the Office of General Counsel. They have many functions and each is assigned a designator to route inquiries. When a VARO has a quandary about a legal question that is unique and never been encountered, they send it to OGC (021). That working group of lawyers crafts a VA OGC Precedent Opinion to cover it if necessary. When you appeal to the CAVC from a BVA decision denying you, the litigators in (027) are the ones who defend the VA's good name. If you are seeking to become a VA non attorney practitioner, you apply to (022D) branch handling attorney certification. OGC rarely, if ever, would be involved in your claim nor would the VARO personnel ever reach out to OGC. When your appeal is certified and the c-file is transmitted to DC, it goes to the BVA which is (014) but that is the only time it enters the OGC realm absent an appeal to the CAVC. I recently put up a controversial post about finding out who your rater or DRO was. This is a classic example of utilizing it to find the author if you wish to speak to them and discuss the progress or expected completion date. Remember, do not let the tail wag the dog. The VA is your Agency. It was created by Congress for you, the Veteran. It is beholden to you for its livelihood. You have every right to know what is afoot. Raters are not permitted to sign their decisions but they are identified by their initials. This allows us to find them and ask questions if we want to. VA has gradually isolated their personnel behind concertina wire and access to individuals is increasiingly limited. However, you always have the right to walk in and cold call them. I find it refreshing to call them out and ask piercing questions about the process/progress. Eventually, they figure out you weren't born last night and become more amenable to talking about these things. I look forward to doing this more frequently when I get my agent status. Best of luck N4L. Don't forget to ask for your 100% convalescent rating for time after surgery.

After 19 years and some change, VA relented and gave me my 1994 EED at 100% following my appeal to the CAVC-but I didn't get an apology. After 5 years of denials for a greenhouse, the VLJ eviscerated the Seattle VR&E Katzenjammer Kids for their denial logic-but I didn't get an apology. I was forced to file a Writ for SMC S all the way back to 94 after Secretary Bob interceded and gave me a SOC. Secretary Bob did not send me an apology after I won everything. I do not believe they have a VA form for apologies. Always remember that a win is a win with VA regardless the "excuse". Justice delayed is never Justice denied. The 20-year interest on the $838 K "loan" would have been nice, though. Besides, you would never have wanted to get in a CUE knife fight in a dark alley with VA. It is a bitch slap for the VARO because the VLJ said they forgot the SOC. That's like a big L on the forehead...VADHD. They have one job. Deny. The next step is to deny your DRO review. Last, they issue a SOC continuing denial and certify the claim following the VA 9. How do you certify w/o a SOC? How do you accept a VA 9 w/o a SOC? When this happens, the rules say VA does not demand a NOD or VA9 to satisfy legality. If VA certifies it with a VA 8, they signify they have accepted it in "as is" condition regardless of deficiency. As an important matter of law nowadays, the VLJ can use the VA 8 to elect to maintain control of it and make a decision even with the defect. If any extra evidence had been submitted, s/he could send it around the corner to the AMC on 1718 Eye Street and have them "redeny" it and issue a SSOC. Here, you won without a declaration of CUE which means it is remanded to comply with the VLJ's findings that it was in Limbo and still viable. The VLJ granted what you hoped for in a CUE success. You win twice. All you have to worry about now is the idiot that is going to low ball your rating for TBI on remand at the RO. You'll get to file a new NOD and begin the appeal process all over again. But this time you're waaaaaay smarter, huh?

Most recently, I punched through a Joint Motion for Remand back from the CAVC. The BVA revamped their decision to grant back to 94. That was November 18, 2013. They sent it out to the AMC who made the decision almost immediately (December 15th, 2013) Pay day was Feb. 12, 2014. That was probably "expeditiously handled" as a remand. In most cases, it will return to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) known as your Regional Office.There it will sit for about two-five months until it is reinspected and gets three concurring signatures, the proper Diagnostic Code and the brand new (appealable) low ball 0-10% rating. Virtually all the guys I deal with now are hard core Vietnam Veterans with Agent Orange issues- with Parkinson's being the most frequent one. Their settlements are usually longstanding if they applied wisely for DM2 in 94. It became a retroactive presumptive in 2001. Throw in a Fenderson staged rating spread out over twenty two years with plenty of STRs to document it and they throw up their hands and give you whatever your present rating is clear back to the earliest date it is ascertainable you became entitled to it. Backlogs are a bitch. Milk them for all you can.

Having joined the "Big Boys Club" 44 years ago, and having errors and omissions insurance, I certainly do not need a minder to protect me from what I post. While I do appreciate other's concern for my legal standing and potential lawsuits, I am relatively certain no one would abuse the information and links I have provided. Should they do so, I cannot be sued for the knowledge freely accessible in another website. Would I feel bad? Yes, but not for my actions. I like to think of Veterans who come to our sites as intelligent, responsible adults and not skulking chuckleheads with an ax to grind. Now to answer a huge misconception and a gross mistruth Mr. Broken Soldier seems to be laboring under. I also apologize for casting any aspersions about personality disorders earlier. I merely noted the self-admitted MDD rated at 30%,50%-- 100%. He is correct. It is not a personality disorder but a Major Depressive Disorder as described in the DSVM IV. Personality disorders are not compensable. <<< You are missing the point- that VA rater employees are not, nor should they be, direclty (sic) answerable to the veteran. If they were then nothing would ever get done.>>> Allow me, sir to elucidate with more "hyperbole". Hyperbole is defined as exaggeration. I do not exaggerate when I cite to 38 CFR § 3.103(c)(1)(2) which you apparently are not acquainted with. It involves a concept called Due Process under 38 USC § 501. Anyone who helps Vets, or professes to, is intimately aware of it. It is the bedrock principle that allows me (or you) to march into a VARO and ask to talk to the author of the decision. S/he is in charge of my decision (and denial) unless or until I file a Notice of Disagreement that requires a de novo review by a higher rating authority such as a DRO review. to wit: (c) The right to a hearing. (1) Upon request, a claimant is entitled to a hearing at any time on any issue involved in a claim within the purview of part 3 of this chapter, subject to the limitations described in § 20.1304 of this chapter with respect to hearings in claims which have been certified to the Board of Veterans' Appeals for appellate review. VA will provide the place of hearing in the VA office having original jurisdiction over the claim or at the VA office nearest the claimant's home having adjudicative functions, or, subject to available resources and solely at the option of VA, at any other VA facility or federal building at which suitable hearing facilities are available. VA will provide one or more employees who have original determinative authority of such issues to conduct the hearing and be responsible for establishment and preservation of the hearing record. Hearings in connection with proposed adverse actions and appeals shall be held before one or more VA employees having original determinative authority who did not participate in the proposed action or the decision being appealed. All expenses incurred by the claimant in connection with the hearing are the responsibility of the claimant. (2) The purpose of a hearing is to permit the claimant to introduce into the record, in person, any available evidence which he or she considers material and any arguments or contentions with respect to the facts and applicable law which he or she may consider pertinent. All testimony will be under oath or affirmation. The claimant is entitled to produce witnesses, but the claimant and witnesses are expected to be present. The Veterans Benefits Administration will not normally schedule a hearing for the sole purpose of receiving argument from a representative. It is the responsibility of the VA employee or employees conducting the hearings to explain fully the issues and suggest the submission of evidence which the claimant may have overlooked and which would be of advantage to the claimant's position. To assure clarity and completeness of the hearing record, questions which are directed to the claimant and to witnesses are to be framed to explore fully the basis for claimed entitlement rather than with an intent to refute evidence or to discredit testimony. In cases in which the nature, origin, or degree of disability is in issue, the claimant may request visual examination by a physician designated by VA and the physician's observations will be read into the record. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501) That seems pretty clear to most of us who do this for Veterans. 38 CFR and 38 USC have a wealth of assets for Veterans-- but only if they are aware of them. My question still stands. What, pray tell, is to be gained by suppressing knowledge helpful to winning a claim, sir? I have never suggested any Veteran forego visiting the Pink site. I merely point to the quality of the advice given- or lack thereof. Censorship is a vestige of power over knowledge exerted by those who fear the truth. And that's all I'm gonna say about that.

Roger that sir. Best if we just roll this one up and censor it. Infosec has been violated. Vets simply cannot be trusted with this stuff. Bad Juju... I guess Theresa and I ought to push erase on this puppy. Of course, seeing's as I put it up in February of 2013, you'd think there would have been a marked rise in VA rater attacks or homicides. All I saw was a rise in hits from attorneys. Knowledge is power. Suppress the knowledge and you deprive the Veteran of the choice to know and force them to remain in the dark.

Theresa, (and all of you.) I tend to break some eggs occasionally. I try not to. Privacy is utmost in my/our business. I could have a condo in every major South American city with all the SSNs and DOBs. I have never divulged a single Veteran's personal data without redaction (and permission) for teaching purposes. Those old documents illustrate what many will find in their 1960s-70s c-files. Again, no personal info but a wealth of mistakes we learn from. On the other hand, those of us who venture to the CAVC or CAFC, relinquish the right to that privacy. VA employees, by electing to get a cush government job, lose that protection as well. Any VA GS employee signs away that privilege. Your and my name, unless an appeal involving very personal information or evidence of a sexual nature, have our name published at the CAVC/CAFC Court sites. The record is open for all to view because this is America. With that said, the purpose of the post was not to obtain a name for retribution. Nowhere in my blog did I suggest anything other than honorable reasons for obtaining this in order to facilitate a quicker resolution to the claim. For many, time is of the essence due to finances or health. The shortest distance from A to B in this business is knowledge. VA chooses, for whatever reason, to mask their players in this game. In 1975, when I was attempting to get a VA home loan (while still single), I'd go in to see the VA Home loan rater and see if I could get a loan but avoid marriage. The Secretary at the front said "Go on back. He's the third desk on the left. Mr. Peterson." I had to get married to fix it. The simple point being is I knew him after three visits. I didn't have to make an appointment 3 months in advance on an 800 number. That is the drift of this post. This is 2016. You can text a message to the moon but not an email to the rater ninety miles away ? To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I used to build houses. If the truss truck was late, you did something else. Any work around that keeps your claim in motion is a valuable tool worth exploiting. Many here remember the Golden Claims era several years ago. Call up Allison or Bob and get a winner in a week. Many of us used it to success and even more (me) to an expedited SOC denial. Regardless, we used it because we could and it was there. This is no different but I should not have to make that case.Did you feel guilty about having Under Secretary Hickey's number and calling her uninvited? Were you rude? The gentleman felt the tenor of my blog was to gain knowledge for evil purposes. This shows a marked propensity to paint Veterans as capable of, or an inclination, to resort to physical violence. That may or may not be a personality disorder on his part that would cause him to mention it.... but it is identical to the tenor of the help site being discussed. It's not some ugly secret that I was censored and removed for violating their "anti-VA comments" codicil. I apologize for doing it because we should all work together in harmony to promote knowledge. I failed. Defending one school of thought (VSO=God) to the mutual exclusion of even listening to others' knowledge and going so far as to suppress/censor it is their right on their site. I firmly defend their right to do so. The obverse of this coin is that they should at least put up a disclaimer that the information proffered on their site is suspect, perhaps slanted against the best interests of the Vet, and certain opinions that state otherwise have been removed to promote peace and harmony on the site and avoid dissention. Knowledge is power. If you suppress it, you are not doing anyone any good. If you think suppressing others' thoughts is helpful, do tell us why. This isn't about who's website is cooler or who gets more hits. It never was. It's not who gets Johnny Vet his win. If it's a VSO, wonderful. If it was an attorney, then he won and you pay him. If the Vet read how to do it here, then cool beans and we all won. We. Not me. Not Theresa. Veterans won. Ken Carpenter or Bob Walsh won. Every win is a vindication that they get 65% of your claims wrong. There will never be anything I am ashamed of writing about other than VA's propensity to shortchange us. Any tactical advantage I find, I share. It sure doesn't do any of you any good in my pocket.

I'm sorry you feel that way, Tbird. If you feel it is useless.or somehow divisive and counterproductive, feel free to remove it. Many attorneys consider it a Godsend since I put it up on my site over four years ago. To my knowledge, no one has ever abused it or tried to intimidate a rater with the knowledge gained from it. I would think any who know me here or at my site know I have to comport with the laws of VA as an Officer of the Court. I would never advocate or condone malice or misfeasance.

Brokensoldier244th, I beg to disagree with you, I have used this process to deal directly with the individual identified. So do many attorneys, I might point out. . There is nothing easier than dealing directly with the chucklehead who screwed up something at a RO. I have walked in and asked to speak with the named fellow or gal and been granted the request several times at the Seattle Regional Office. I now have Ms. Mackey-Rivas as well as several others on my email rolodex and correspond with them regularly to clear up discrepancies in my ratings. The relationship is not adversarial. Always remember, the Veteran is the customer, not VA. Why do you have to attribute negative motives to attaining free knowledge? I'm not outing anyone. The information is there to be had. Any tool in a Veteran's bag should be employed if it results in a grant sooner. The object of my post is to disseminate valuable knowledge. I helped a gal in Chicago get her WW2 dad his 100% P&T after identifying the bozo who inadvertently turned it into a pension claim. It took 21 days to straighten it out. She walked in and talked to the director and had it fixed in less than an hour. The director called in the rater named and he immediately admitted to being "misinformed" by the VSO. Ah, I remember you from Peggy's Pink site now. I had to go over there and look you up. You're one of their ten-year koolaid drinkers. No offense intended but even some of my Veterans Law Judge friends used to consider Cruiser either someone who purposefully led Vets astray or was grossly uninformed on VA regulations. His grasp of Hepatitis C law and etiology was clouded by his brother's heroin addiction and subsequent death due to it. The Olde Medic was similarly deluded in his understanding of Hepatitis C and used to hand out absolutely horrible advice on the subject. Mr. "Medic" used to insist that if your Service Treatment Records (STRs) did not show evidence of HCV infection in service, your claim was doomed. Might I point out a Vietnam Veteran like myself could not possibly have a disease discovered in 1989 in his 1969 medical records? In this business, if you want to engage in discourse on a subject, it pays to have immense knowledge of what you speak. The worst thing a Veteran can do is to offer misinformation, or worse, knowingly false information while appearing to be someone who is knowledgeable on the given subject. That kind of disservice to one's fellow Veteran is beneath anyone who moderates here or at my site. If we don't know, we look it up. We don't take another hit of Bourbon and strap on an imaginary M.D. after our names. If you wish to see which Veterans Help sites are considered reputable by those who adjudicate VA claims at the BVA, read the following article. Don't take my word for it. Hadit.com and asknod.org are held in high esteem in the legal world by many legal circles-including NOVA. Theresa and I didn't get this far offering shoddy advice. The folks we counsel win based on a foundation of the knowledge and experience of those who came before. Peggy's Pink site should have a sign out front that says "Why waste your time?. Your claim is doomed. Why even bother filing?". The article was published in no less a venue that the United States Circuit for Federal Claims Bar Journal. See page 381, footnote # 73. It seems odd they omitted old Dean and the gang from that list. Trust me. I asked them. They consider it a " negative, unhelpful and discouraging" site to those who come looking for advice. I apologize if I sound rude, sir. My job is not to be popular. It is to help Vets-all Vets- regardless of their disease or injury- get what they earned. It most definitely is not to impede them from their quest. http://www.veteranslawlibrary.com/files/Articles/NowistheTime.pdf

Have you ever wondered who came up with that gomer denial with no logical rationale? Here's how you find out who wrote it. This will help you if you wish to talk to them. https://asknod.org/2016/05/09/varo-hide-and-seek/

No, Berta. I got a letter Friday from them asking me just exactly what my disabilities consist of since I put down that I was 100% disabled and unemployed. I'm sure the OGC never bothered to look it up. They would immediately jump to the conclusion it was bent brain syndrome and use that to disqualify me. All Vietnam Vets have bent brains in their book. The joke's on them. I've never filed for that one yet. Fortunately for me it was just a personality disorder which wasn't fatal nor compensable. Fortunately, I came to terms with it and I've learned to live with it. Apparently, it turned me into an argumentative a**h**e and little more.

Draw808 I think it's time someone gives you the briefing on how this works. Since 2010, VBA has forbidden VHA doctors of all stripes from offering any nexus letters that associate any current disease/injury with any disease/ injury in service. It ain't gonna happen. This is why there is a market for private doctors charging for nexus letters. You can dodge this where a doctor at a VAMC is an employee of an associated college medical center that works at VA. Examples are at the Univ. Of Oregon/Portland VAMC or Seattle VAMC with the Univ. of Washington. If you have private medical, you would pay the copay to go see one of these SA specialists and get tested privately. At that point you may be able to ask them to opine on the likelihood of a service connection using unequivocal language. Many will do this and many will not. In any case, in order to be probative with VA, it would have to include the info that the SA specialist had also reviewed your service medical records in coming to any conclusion and good reasons why it is service related. Simply saying Johnny Vet's SA is most likely related to his service without a long list of reasons why isn't going to put you in the $ column. Having a DRO review without one of theses magic pieces of paper isn't going to improve your chances of winning, either. Five buddy letters is neat as long as they only say that they served with you, supply a DD 214 that proves it and limit the statement that you snored a lot in the barracks. They cannot testify that you have SA. They aren't doctors. It makes no difference if you have an E-7 or SSgt. Jesus H. Christ was your squad leader. That doesn't make the buddy letter more probative. Testifying you snored a lot doesn't equal a diagnosis of SA or OSA. It only means you snored a lot. That's why you lost. Best of luck, sir.

A filing for a disease secondary to an existing one is not an increase. Each disease that evolvves as a secondary is a stand alone claim. If you win, the rating diagnostic code will be an amalgam of the primary rating such as DC 7354 for hepatitis C and the second disease such as Porphyria cutanea tarda. The rating sheet would read 7354-7815. I have two like that. the other one is 7354-7700 ( 60% anemia -old 1994 DC 7700). I appealed for 100% for it based on the similarity to 4.115a (dialysis) because there was no 100% rating for porphyria phlebotomies-just 40% under DC 7704. It's called rating by analogy when there is no specific code for a disease/injury. Look at 38 CFRs 4.20 and 4.27 § 4.20 Analogous ratings. When an unlisted condition is encountered it will be permissible to rate under a closely related disease or injury in which not only the functions affected, but the anatomical localization and symptomatology are closely analogous. Conjectural analogies will be avoided, as will the use of analogous ratings for conditions of doubtful diagnosis, or for those not fully supported by clinical and laboratory findings. Nor will ratings assigned to organic diseases and injuries be assigned by analogy to conditions of functional origin § 4.27 The diagnostic code numbers appearing opposite the listed ratable disabilities are arbitrary numbers for the purpose of showing the basis of the evaluation assigned and for statistical analysis in the Department of Veterans Affairs, and as will be observed, extend from 5000 to a possible 9999. Great care will be exercised in the selection of the applicable code number and in its citation on the rating sheet. No other numbers than these listed or hereafter furnished are to be employed for rating purposes, with an exception as described in this section, as to unlisted conditions. When an unlisted disease, injury, or residual condition is encountered, requiring rating by analogy, the diagnostic code number will be “built-up” as follows: The first 2 digits will be selected from that part of the schedule most closely identifying the part, or system, of the body involved; the last 2 digits will be “99” for all unlisted conditions. This procedure will facilitate a close check of new and unlisted conditions, rated by analogy. In the selection of code numbers, injuries will generally be represented by the number assigned to the residual condition on the basis of which the rating is determined. With diseases, preference is to be given to the number assigned to the disease itself; if the rating is determined on the basis of residual conditions, the number appropriate to the residual condition will be added, preceded by a hyphen. Thus, rheumatoid (atrophic) arthritis rated as ankylosis of the lumbar spine should be coded “5002-5240.” In this way, the exact source of each rating can be easily identified. In the citation of disabilities on rating sheets, the diagnostic terminology will be that of the medical examiner, with no attempt to translate the terms into schedule nomenclature. Residuals of diseases or therapeutic procedures will not be cited without reference to the basic disease.

As promised, I attach a big winner. I've never found so many CUEs under one rock. Kev's DRO reviewer called him up to tell him he knew more about SMC than she did. My name never came up fortunately. Redacted DRO for R2 for Kevin.pdf

What I see missing here is any mention of 38 CFR 1154(b) Combat enhancement. VA did not give him enhanced credibility in 1983. In fact, they didn't even mention it which they would be required to discuss by law (and then discount as not being probative). That is CUE. VA is required to take any testimony about his feet in the combat environment as Gospel. It's clear they had the STRs when they made the 1983 decision. Presumption of Soundness at entry on the physical sets the injury metric. If he had flat feet when he left, then it occurred in service -38 CFR 3.303(a). If he says he got flat feet and he has a PH and CIB, VA cannot argue otherwise. Having proved CUE, all he has to do is show that the error manifestly changed the outcome. The 2015 grant is proof of that. The only thing that could poke a hole in this balloon would be an unappealed BVA decision which would have rendered the subject closed. No appeal up to the BVA on any of those reopens following 1983 means a CUE claim is still viable for 1983 as well as any follow on denials in the interim. Personally, I'd go for it. I'd get an atty. because it's going to be a cat fight for that many dineros. Sorry about that sugar. Your email didn't mention the medals and the CIB. That's a whole different ballgame. Anyone who would die in combat for their country gets a bye on their testimony as being credible without corroboration.

Ardodd, I'm absolutely swamped with Vets I'm helping. It looks like you have had either very poor representatives from VSOs helping you or a concerted effort by VA to sandbag you. Any time you walk into a RO and flip a claim onto the counter, they file it and date stamp it right there on the spot. They generally ask you if you'd like a copy w/ the date stamp too. So I guess I don't get the 1991 VA clerk saying he'd file it but he didn't. That's against the law in 48 states. As for the 1999 filing, you have to have three ingredients. Sounds like you arrived with two and were lacking a current diagnosis. As I say, I'm looking through binoculars backwards from here. My advice would be to beat feet to a good VA attorney. If you have a c-file semi-up-to-date, it might help the atty. to see the chronology of the claim. Remember, the CAVC doesn't recognize a VSO as being anything more intelligent, legally speaking, than your dog or cat. If you did all this pro se, I might understand your confusion. But how you got aced in 1991 is a mystery. Best of luck, sir.

But he's not getting SMC J. Is that a monthly entitlement to Left-handed tobacco from VA? I also am in the hunt for a Vet in Arizona for R1, Buck. I'm certain that one's in the bag. They screwed up and gave him two SMC Ks -one for each leg but-wait for it- they'd already given him Aid and Attendance (SMC L). Idiot's delight. If you have loss of use of two extremities, it's an automatic SMC L. Now, by law, he's entitled to SMC O -but- if one of your ratings at SMC O is A&A, you advance automatically to R1. A BVA judge pulled off that brain fart. He took it all the way up by himself but wisely grabbed a rainmaker for the CAVC. Another graduate of the Win or Die club who read my book. This is more fun than getting your picture on the cover of the Rolling Stones.

You will always get an attorney free if you go to the CAVC regardless of the relative merits of your claim or its intrinsic worth. The NVLSP , Veterans Pro Bono Consortium and numerous others will take it to fill out the requirement that they put in 30 + hours per year for pro bono work. As for the myth of EAJA fees, the lodestar stands at $187.50 an hour. If, and a big if, you "substantially prevail", your attorney's EAJA hours will still be discounted and he/she will get a rump settlement from VA. If they spend a year appealing the EAJA to CAVC- what? More time expended like a dog chasing its tail with nothing more gained but wasted energy in pursuit of $200. Even I, if and when I get my agent's certification, will have to "donate" pro bono time as well. I have no objection to that. Vets, by right, shouldn't have to pay to get what is due. Unfortunately, you get what you pay for in life. Do you want an experienced navigator from the outset guiding your claim or Leagalzoom.com in charge? If you do it yourself, logically you should pursue it as far as possible before resorting to help (outside Hadit or my site). VA attorneys serve a useful purpose in cases where the Vet has been egregiously wronged. But, like any "lawsuit", it has to have value or the attorney cannot invest years pursuing $100. In addition, if the records (c-file) are silent for the claimed malady, there is really no case to build. I wish you well in this pursuit.

The only problem with hiring an attorney is that you've been awarded the majority of the monies and there is little or nothing for a VA attorney to make it worth his/her while now. I see this frequently and just as often I see attorneys turn down the claims since there is much work, poring over a c-file for evidence and little remuneration. I've had Vets come to me asking for the name of a good atty. for a tinnitus appeal with an earlier effective date of 2010 or so. Figure it out. $1300 a year back pay times five years is $7,500.00. 20 % of that is $1,500 for 4 years of Appeals to the BVA. It doesn't pencil out. A law dog racks up about $180 K in school loans for seven years and then has to have a storefront with a legal secretary. Plus, he's paying interest on the loan. If your claim isn't worth much, you would be better to find a good VSO-if there is one.

I got a letter from my doctor saying Buckwheat is hors d' combat and isn't going to get better-ever. I had my P&T 90 days later. Generally, when they declare you TDIU or 100% (schedular) for a disease /injury, they will schedule a P&T exam for several years in the future. If , you pass that, you're granted the Full Ride. There certainly is no rule saying you have to wait the two years to apply or ask for it. Best of Luck, sir.

Well, now. Here's a classic example of why a lot of us here are leery of tossing out advice when we haven't seen the ratings sheet or someone gives us incomplete information. You will notice I said you would be entitled to SMC S if, and only if, the VA did NOT combine the PTSD with the migraine headaches. It hinges many times on the order in which they are awarded. For example, if you filed for, and were awarded the headaches first, and were awarded the PTSD later, it could never be said that the headaches were secondary to PTSD. On the other hand, if you were awarded the PTSD and the migraines simultaneously, or the PTSD prior to the migraines, they could be combined as you can review here in 38 CFR 4.124a: Diagnostic Code8045 Residuals of traumatic brain injury (TBI): There are three main areas of dysfunction that may result from TBI and have profound effects on functioning: cognitive (which is common in varying degrees after TBI), emotional/behavioral, and physical. Each of these areas of dysfunction may require evaluation. Cognitive impairment is defined as decreased memory, concentration, attention, and executive functions of the brain. Executive functions are goal setting, speed of information processing, planning, organizing, prioritizing, self-monitoring, problem solving, judgment, decision making, spontaneity, and flexibility in changing actions when they are not productive. Not all of these brain functions may be affected in a given individual with cognitive impairment, and some functions may be affected more severely than others. In a given individual, symptoms may fluctuate in severity from day to day. Evaluate cognitive impairment under the table titled “Evaluation of Cognitive Impairment and Other Residuals of TBI Not Otherwise Classified.” Subjective symptoms may be the only residual of TBI or may be associated with cognitive impairment or other areas of dysfunction. Evaluate subjective symptoms that are residuals of TBI, whether or not they are part of cognitive impairment, under the subjective symptoms facet in the table titled “Evaluation of Cognitive Impairment and Other Residuals of TBI Not Otherwise Classified".However, separately evaluate any residual with a distinct diagnosis that may be evaluated under another diagnostic code, such as migraine headache or Meniere's disease, even if that diagnosis is based on subjective symptoms, rather than under the “Evaluation of Cognitive Impairment and Other Residuals of TBI Not Otherwise Classified” table Evaluate emotional/behavioral dysfunction under § 4.130 (Schedule of ratings—mental disorders) when there is a diagnosis of a mental disorder. When there is no diagnosis of a mental disorder, evaluate emotional/behavioral symptoms under the criteria in the table titled “Evaluation of Cognitive Impairment and Other Residuals of TBI Not Otherwise Classified.” Having all the facts as well as the c-file is the gold standard for making a cogent decision in this business. I profoundly apologize for the advice offered but I can only opine on the facts given.

Two important notes. I haven't used VA for medical since I escaped with my life in 2010. Have you folks lost your minds? I'd go to Zimbabwe for the procedure before a VAMC. I'm using my own cardio doc of six years who's my age. He's done hundreds of procedures and will be doing my cardio cath tomorrow through the arm. 0900 is showtime. Note #2 is for Thomas89021: They shut down the Newnan, Georgia site last month. Send everything to Cheeseville. Faxing it in has been proven not to be covered by the Presumption of Regularity of the mail so I do not suggest using any other method than our old friend the USPS and a green card. Remember, if the eBennies computer"eats" your homework, you have no definitive proof it arrived whole. We still operate under the Common Law Mailbox Rule- No tickee, no laundry. Win or Die