FormerMember

Sounds like he got hung up in Eugene Haas' case with Blue Water Navy initially and they hung him out to die. When the new ship's lists came out, I'm betting he qualified via that and it explains why his spouse finally prevailed on DIC. Beverly Nehmer did us all a tremendous favor.

If your VSO asked them to mail her a SOC, that is a request for a continued denial. A Statement of the Case (SOC) is only mailed out in the event of a denial. It confirms and continues the denial as well as providing you with rationale for their denial and the VA Form 9 required to file to complete the second, substantive leg of you appeal to the BVA. I think she should have asked them for reconsideration of the decision based on the omission of the evidence in support of a higher rating/TDIU. Be careful what you ask for. Here, your VSO will probably get exactly what she requested.

The absolute rule in VAland on claims is simple. Your date of claim will always be the day you mailed it in. 2013 would be the date of claim and thus the effective date. In the case of a request for an increase in your rating, if the medical evidence shows entitlement to an earlier date, the earliest that can be awarded is one year prior to your filing for the increase. As for us old Vietnam pukes with Agent Orange diseases, if we had been smart and filed for Diabetes 2 in 1994-regardless of what we thought caused it, we would get that earlier date. When Congress passed the law, they allowed for an earlier date based on the filing-even if the liberalizing regulation was not changed to encompass DM2 until 2001 as they did in that case. The same applies for Parkinson's being included in 2010. I have a birdshit Vet ( 101 Airborne) who filed for it in 98. Guess what? A short ton of retro will be coming his way soon.

Bronco is right. The DAV crew waltzed off with my appeal in 1991 for six months and filed a two-page "Give him the benefit of the doubt, please". A rep from VFW wrote it. There are currently five (5) groups of three VSO member "teams" doing these preparations for Vets. Each group consists of various senior VSO reps. It's a cherry $94 K/yr. job at 810 Varmint Ave. NW. They take the appeal and put it in their in-baskets. It goes nowhere with the Judge until it comes out of hibernation. Many of us think it is a mere holding area for claims to give the impression something valuable is happening. I sent my second appeal in April 2012 and got the same response after several months. I called them up and stated I was pro se thus there couldn't possibly be any "VSO review". The appeal immediately advanced to the next stage a week later. Do the ugly math. 60,000 plus appeals awaiting adjudication currently. Assume 50,000 are VSO -repped. Divide 50,000 by five teams. And you wonder why it will be 4 years until you get action. Rest assured that if your claim was ready to be decided that it is now in dog and pony land awaiting a 21- 646 for no good reason. This is precisely why we don't use VSOs nor advocate their use. Funny thing is, I doubt your designated broker even works for DAV. Could be he's from one of the other VSOs. The 3-man teams are made up of all the different major VSOs like AmLeg, DAV, MOPH, and VFW.

Pete, no one is crazier than anyone else here. Allow me to revise and extend my comments. You always have the right to request VA reconsider anything they decide negatively. You may call it a plea for sanity, a rethinking of something that is obviously erroneous or a request to reaccomplish a defective train of logic based on a lack of evidence or misinterpretation of what was before them. You are free to do this any way you wish-be it a MFR bottle in the ocean or a NOD (or Admin. review-see below). Over the years, I have caught raters utilizing the wrong regulations, ignoring the right ones or making equally obvious errors regarding case or controversy. The problem arises when they have no time to revisit the error short of the Veteran filing a NOD. There are exceptions to every rule. A smaller RO like Sioux Falls or Fort Harrison is easier to approach in this regard before a NOD is filed. It works best if the letter requesting the MFR is sent within days of the receipt of the defective decision. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Some raters feel that once they have spoken, the next words out of their mouth are "SOC". You cannot reason with them. There is no one-size-fits-all for this problem. But make no mistake, sir. There simply is no "Request for Consideration" or similar legal tool you can file that will give you the assurance that VA will reconsider within the 12 months accorded you to file the NOD. That is the error I point out. I actually have high hopes that VA would someday move towards a true Court where a Veteran could arrive and present his case in person with witnesses and corroborative evidence. VA would be free to rebut the evidence and or present their own doctors to inveigh and testify otherwise. After this, a decision that was clearly and unmistakably correct would be rendered. You would be free to add rebuttal evidence you developed during the "trial" so as to avoid even needing a NOD. This semi-ex parte proceeding need not be formal like a Perry Mason trial with "sustained" or "overruled" shouted repeatedly. What it might do is give more weight to a gastroenterologist's nexus letter who has 25 years in the business over a VA examiner with an ARNP suffix opining that the hepatitis was not identified until 2001 and therefore that is the beginning of the disease. You cannot apply Maxson v. Gober to every set of circumstances. Hepatitis C takes three decades to manifest. Unfortunately, VA Examiners are not gastrodcos so we end up with these defective ratings. Allowing poor, uneducated misleading theories into the process simply forces hopeful Veterans into the untenable position of thinking it can be fixed quickly short of a full-blown NOD. Having VSO reps touting this as a viable panacea where it simply does not exist is deceptive and dangerous. We all know a NOD almost guarantees a 16-20 month pause in the process but it does entail a new decision which is, essentially, a motion for reconsideration. A DRO review is identical inasmuch as it also grants a de novo decision but takes 3 years if you're lucky. Holding out the unreasonable hope that this can be repaired by writing in and asking for it is not viable for most of us. Surely you realize no two claims are alike to any degree such that one sets the metric for all that follow. What I perceive happened in your case is the self-styled "MFR" your friend submitted merely brought to the attention of the rater the error he committed. The wrong would have been righted eventually. The "MFR" merely called attention to the error short of having to actually file a true request for Administrative review in the form of a NOD. There are innumerable legal mechanisms that most Veterans are unaware of short of a NOD. A true, stand alone administrative review is one that comes to mind. If you are convinced, and statute and regulation bear you out, you may file a request for Admin. review under 38 CFR §20.400 requesting a reading on the statute or regulation in question. This often can be done in far less than 12 months and frequently corrects a rater's brain fart. It is done at the VACO in DC, and, as such, actually is also a de novo review in its own right. I did it on my VR&E Independent Living Program request for a computer in 2011. I cited to OGC Precedent 34-97 that described my very same circumstances. It took three months from beginning to end. The VA filed it for me with my cite to the precedent and they promptly bitchslapped the VR&E gomer. I got my computer a month or two later. Pete, I deeply respect your expertise in this field but I am a pragmatist. If I thought a MFR was the ticket, I'd be pounding the typewriter into the night and advising the rest of you to do so. Failing that, I suggest you saddle up the horse and ride over to the RO. Park yourself in the waiting room with the largest bag of Fritos manufactured and ask to speak to the rater who screwed it up. Tell them you're disabled and have all day. No rush. Someday, VA may get their house in order. Until then, we'll continue to try to locate shortcuts and advise Vets of them. Pretty crazy, huh?

Dear Hadit members, After reading about 500 discussions on "Motions for Reconsiderations", I finally felt the spirit within move me to write about it. I researched everything from the M21 to 38 CFR in its entirety. Here's the report. My dogs were extremely instrumental in helping me frame the discussion. Not unexpectedly, I had occasion to sneak up on a VSO from a Tacoma, Wa. VSO and lay it out for him from the standpoint of a prospective Veteran looking for representation. He jumped in with both feet and heartily encouraged me to go the recon route prior to a full-blown NOD. His rationale? "Well, with the new FDC method, they're getting the backlog out of the way and they have more time to review a decision again before you reach the one-year suspense date to file the NOD. This is a great way to avoid a long appeal or wait a year for a DRO review". Huh? If you have to wait a year for a DRO show (with or without a hearing), how is it they have time to burn on a MFR? He didn't have an answer. He shrugged his shoulders and said "That's how it works. I don't make the rules." For the record, I haven't met anyone who got a genuine MFR done in that magic 12 months before a NOD filing except in the examples I wrote about. As most of you know, my idea of a MFR is an Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus. I guarantee you'll get some action using that method in 45 days if you've been in a holding pattern for two or more years waiting for a SOC or an up or down following the submission of N&M E. The backlog didn't go away. It migrated to DROs, certification and the BVA. There's a technique for any project. Choosing the right one isn't hard. Rest assured that if there was a shortcut, everyone here would have heard about it by now and it would be adequately described in the M21 for dunce raters to follow. http://asknod.org/2016/01/16/vsos-lets-send-in-a-request-for-reconsideration/

Special monthly compensation for "k" is due and owing upon presentation of qualifying evidence of the disability and the date the disability arose. As such, it is not a claim. Submit proof of the disability to the Evidence Intake Center for your region. Be sure to include any and all medical evidence from your doctor(s) proving the condition or loss of use and the date it can be shown you first began to qualify for it. If an amputation, show date(s) of surgery and location. A good picture will speed things up, too. SMC is not a claim. It is an entitlement. You merely need prove you have met the requirement(s)and when. As such, a 21-4138 requesting pay for it and a 21-2680 signed by the doctor attesting to the facts surrounding the entitlement (if an actual amputation) would be helpful. I'd be tempted to use a 21-526 EZ to file for it as VA folk are becoming addicted to the forms. A 526 can only mean you want something involving $. 4138s are so overused now, they tend to be overlooked or ignored.

Ain't no time to wonder why. Whoopee we're all gonna die. Pick an AO presumptive and ride it like a bronco, guys. I saddled up Porphyria cutanea tarda and rode it to a 100% rating. Whatever you do, pick one that kills you or can be rated for the big bucks. Forget about chloracne and all the sub-acute PN xxxxx stuff. Go for the shit that is gonna kill you. Find the doctor who will write that golden nexus that says the cancer in your throat is due to AO. We're running out of time. There are only about 850 K of us left.

Give them a chance to input it into the system. Better yet, check payments on eBennies and see if it hasn't already been deposited. It will also show up in the category listing your disabilities as being paid at the L 1/2 rate.

Or they can grant the claim in lieu of a SSOC... Think of the glass as half full.

A claim is payable from the first date it can be ascertained you filed for it. No tickee-no laundry. For the record, you can only hold one (1) mental health disorder. Even were you able to prevail with a PTSD rating on top of a currently rated depressive disorder, you would not be given a separate rating. The only possible exception to successfully obtaining an earlier effective date would be a claim filed that was never adjudicated. That's how I won mine back to 1994. In certain circumstances, VA cannot sweep it under the carpet and say it was "deemed denied" or implicitly considered and denied. An inferred claim would be one where you are wearing the better part of a gook hand grenade in your chest and arm and they forget to take an x ray look at all the steel in your noggin. An implied claim can be where you show up for the C&P for hearing loss and you say " I have ringing in my right ear". That implies you have tinnitus. Therefore they have to rate you for it. Failure to do so leaves it unadjudicated and growing dust until they do. There are inferred and implied claims. The slope is slippery. You can tell a VA doctor you wish to file a claim for an ailment. He is obligated to transmit that info to the VARO and they, in turn, are legally required to send you out a 526EZ to help you get started. If you fail to do so (file the claim) for over a year from the Dr.'s appointment, it dies.

You cannot be represented by a lawyer until you get a denial. When dealing w/ mental health claims, it's almost imperative to get a lawyer on board BEFORE you get to the BVA so you develop the new and material evidence you need to win. Lawyers have a stable of doctors/ psychiatrists on their rolodex to call for supportive nexus letters. They front the money for it and deduct it from your winnings. Having an attorney at the BVA shows VA you weren't born last night. I take the pragmatic viewpoint. Ifyou pay out 20% to get the big banana, you get it for life. That is well worth what you pay the attorney. He gets his 20% and you never see him again. Every time I hear someone say that the DAV does it for free, I close my eyes and shake my head. Complicated claims require much more supervision. Bent Brain is denied far more frequently than it is granted so it helps to have as many assets as possible up front. Ben Franklin summed it up squarely as being penny-wise and pound foolish. Best of luck.

R/T. I call Banana Smoke...

Anyone with your mettle who jumps through the SAH hoops for a new dwelling can get to SMC O if---a big if---you qualify for it.Getting to SMC L is merely the first tipping point in a long medical process of going downhill. Many do not realize all the injuries/diseases you present to qualify for SMC have to be service connected in order to advance to the ultimate level of R2. I can't count how many Vets show up with a wheel barrow full of stuff that eminently qualifies them for the higher reaches of SMC but few of their ailments are SC. The gist of getting to O is simple. You need two elements of all the possible qualifiers among SMCs L, M and N. Any two will do. In your case, with two true 100% schedulars (or more) you advance to M as a "bump". You still need two of the enumerated disabilities to proceed to O. Nothing can help you make the jump without the two. Having thirty 100% disabilities or 8 Ks is not going to be the magic "kicker". The higher SMCs all hinge of loss of use- usually an extremity that aids in putting a spoon in your piehole, wiping your butt or combing your hair. If you're in a wheelchair due to loss of use of the lower extremities and collecting SMC L with an added bump to SMC M via another 100% rating, you still need some essential disability involving a loss or a situation creating helplessness. If you are capable of performing the activities of everyday living in a wheelchair and have 10 100% disabilities and all 8 Ks, you still do not qualify for SMC O. Special Monthly Compensation, after SMC S, or the bump (or half-step bump from an added 50% or more) you get from having another 100% disability to M, is not predicated on how much larger your rating is. I'm 100+100+60+30+10 and I still do not qualify for L. I pray I never will but I'm a pragmatist and know some day I'll go down the tubes. I'm "prepositioned" for that eventuality and will step right into M when it happens. Nevertheless, any advancement upwards to N or O (or R1/R2 as far as that goes) hinges strictly on my inability to attend to my own needs. For you to qualify for O, you need to peruse 3.350 and 3.352 from stem to stern and review each and every legal requirement (read qualifying disability or loss of use of) to obtain L, M or N. If you can make a good case for suffering two (or more) and it is supported by your STRs, you win O. In addition, SMC is awarded from the date it can be ascertained that you began to qualify for the entitlement. When I finally won my claims in March 2015 after the Extraordinary Writ, it was clearly obvious that I was entitled to SMC S all the way back to 1994. They didn't do a Fenderson staged rating and try to determine exactly which day I became eligible; they simply went from the date I went over 100+60. In your case, the rater's scheme to revamp your claim into a "reopen" versus a NOD is simple. They want to send it through the pipeline again from the front door. They are geared up for this now since the Allison Hickey 125-day/98% accuracy mantra and it truly is the fastest way to get there. I bet the guy thinks he's going to smoke you for the retro but VA raters are d-u-m- (dum) about SMC. If they were ill-informed or sketchy on it, I'd throw in the "b" after dum and give them the benefit of the doubt. Even if you somehow can attain SMC O, it has to be paid back to the day your evidence supports it-period. Remember, you can never "lose" SMC retro. You might have to fight like the devil for it as I did but when you prevail legally, they pay. I see you are falling into the VSO "reconsideration" faery tale. James; there just is no such vehicle in the VA Regional Office that approximates this. If you appealed and lost to the BVA, you could submit a Motion For Reconsideration (MFR) before an enlarged Board of three Veterans Law Judges (VLJs). Other than that, if you hang your hopes on this mirage and fail to file the NOD within one year of the denial, the claim dies. With a claim for a higher SMC, this technically is not true. Remember I mentioned above that it (SMC) is due and payable from the date it can be ascertained it's owed. Getting the RO to see and acknowledge this may require a NOD but that is the only way to get there. I suggest the traditional appeals path when you do. The level of SMC intelligence available at the RO s is nil. SMC is so misunderstood that it is rarely adjudicated correctly. VA raters tend to try to input the parameters into the M 21 maw and expect a cogent, correct answer. The M21, regardless of what anyone has ever told you, is an aid to adjudication-not the law. As with any publication, errors abound. Recent decisions about SMC S in Buie v. Shinseki precedence still have not been upgraded and result in continuing errors on it. As for CUE, I doubt anything VA does is CUE. A mistake made twice is a conscientious decision in my book. Best of luck, sir.

Go for the O James. There are three A&As in SMC but only two higher level ones specifically for it alone L is often referred to as A&A for one simple reason. If you lose the use of your legs, you are unmistakably disabled and need "aid and assistance" in activities of everyday living. It's a low threshold to attain. R1/R2 is "special" A&A. It means you require a paid caregiver who has medical training. R2 is paid when you need a caregiver with extensive medical knowledge who can supervise a day to day caregiver who is akin to a CNA. Usually, a supervisory R2 nurse would be an RN. Your wife could be the caregiver at R1 or R2 as long as she is supervised by the approved and licensed caregiver supervisor. R2 pays about $8,042 a month to offset the cost of that RN and the 24 hr. in-home caregiver for you. I have a friend who is SMC L due to loss of use of legs (total PN from DM2) He has a gal come in about three times a week to clean up, refuel the refer and do some shopping for him. He can function by Campbell's soup standards but not French souffles with asparagus w/ pesto crust. When you hit R1 or R2, you're in catheter land and incontinence. You need someone to cook your meals so you don't burn the house down. You need someone to wipe your butt and roll you into and out of the shower. SMC O is "fairly" easy to get based on the back door they built in with the SMC L A&A loophole. Most sneak in that way. VA will still microscope the pants off you for O. I thrive on SMC law. It's probably the most intense with more twists than the Mississippi. Far too many people are owed it who have VSOs that can't navigate it. If they don't understand it, most will lie and tell you the gravy train ends at 100%. Very sad. Chloracne, huh? I came home with it in 72. Looked like a ton of blackheads on the insides of my forearms and behind my ears and the hairline at my back. I also have a ripsnorting good case of Porphyria and get a phlebotomy every month. After 8 or 9, I go anemic and have to take 3-4 months off. I won a BVA claim for 100% rating it as analogous to dialysis. This sets a great precedent for others to use. Check it out.http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/view.jsp?FV=http://www.va.gov/vetapp15/Files5/1538035.txt I ate AO and A blue for several years. We thought it was pretty cool beans when they sprayed it. The shit killed everything-including mosquitoes.

James, Back the SMC boat back up to the dock. First, regardless of what the rater told you, if you have two (2) true 100% schedular ratings ( not TDIUs) for two dissimilar diseases, you get your bump up from SMC L to SMC M due to 38 CFR 3.350(f)(4). That is the legal basis for it. Adding another 100% schedular to it will not advance you to a higher rating. Now let's see how we can get you to SMC O. You cannot advance to R1 or R2 Aid and attendance without the SMC O predicate. In order to qualify for O, you need any two of the disabilities listed in L, M or N. It makes no difference as long as they are separate and distinct. If you have two, and one is Aid And Attendance at the SMC L level due to some disease or injury that puts you at risk for your well being (helplessness), then you can advance to the SMC O rating. If you had loss of use of your lower extremities and are helpless, these two disabilities qualify you for O. But there is a bump codicil that also allows you to be considered for R1 or R2 when one of the requirements of O is helplessness. This is the only instance I have ever seen where pyramiding is allowed. Regulations provide that where a Veteran shows entitlement to any two SMCs at levels (l), (m), or (n), entitlement to SMC (o) is established. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1114(o); 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(e)(1)(ii). To wit: (e) Ratings under 38 U.S.C. 1114 (o). (1) The special monthly compensation provided by 38 U.S.C. 1114(o) is payable for any of the following conditions: (i) Anatomical loss of both arms so near the shoulder as to prevent use of a prosthetic appliance; (ii) Conditions entitling to two or more of the rates (no condition being considered twice) provided in 38 U.S.C. 1114(l) through (n); (iii) Bilateral deafness rated at 60 percent or more disabling (and the hearing impairment in either one or both ears is service connected) in combination with service-connected blindness with bilateral visual acuity 20/200 or less. (iv) Service-connected total deafness in one ear or bilateral deafness rated at 40 percent or more disabling (and the hearing impairment in either one of both ears is service-connected) in combination with service-connected blindness of both eyes having only light perception or less. SMC (o) can be arrived at a third way via 3.350(4). When a Veteran suffers the loss of use of extremities and is also helpless, they are entitled to SMC (o) as well. 3.350(4): (4) Helplessness. The maximum rate, as a result of including helplessness as one of the entitling multiple disabilities, is intended to cover, in addition to obvious losses and blindness, conditions such as the loss of use of two extremities with absolute deafness and nearly total blindness or with severe multiple injuries producing total disability outside the useless extremities, these conditions being construed as loss of use of two extremities and helplessness. (emphasis added) Again, the argument does not end there. Entitlement to SMC (o) meets the threshold requirement for entitlement to SMC (r-1). The law states that when a Veteran is entitled to SMC (o) (or payment of an equal rate under SMC (p)), and establishes a factual need for A&A, entitlement to special A&A is demonstrated. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1114(r); 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(h). The need for A&A need not be independent of the underlying disabilities used to meet the threshold eligibility requirement, as the regulation provides an exception to the pyramiding rule. 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(h)(1). VA is going to run you under the microscope if you want R1 or R2. The requirements are strictly adhered to. SMC law is not like Claymore rules. You can't just get close and succeed. You have to be bonafide bedridden if you choose that one as a qualifying disability. Most get there via the loss of use and helplessness combination. For the record, ignore the M21. It is a guide and little else. VA raters try to use it but it's computer driven ergo garbage in=garbage out. I have a friend in Manila trying to get this. He's 640% disabled-loss of use from waist down (paralyzed), bedridden (documented w/ bedsores), loss of use of rt extremity, grand mal seizures with no warning. He has a "caregiver" he's paying out of his SMC M. He asked for R1/R2. VA used question 13 on the 21-2680 to bushwhack him at the C&P. Dr. said he can "balance" between transfers from bed to wheelchair so that demonstrates he has not lost his use of his lower extremities. That will give you an idea of how anal they are about this. As for any extra K awards, they all fall out when you hit R1/R2. Best of luck. Do not use a 4138 to send this in. Use a 2680 and have your private dr. sign it. Add in anything on a continuance sheet if necessary. Be prepared for a fight.Best of luck, sir.

Here's how you build it. We began this from the ground up. First the combat medals for 1154(b) combat presumption (PH and CIB)and then the c-file before it accidentally got shredded during the adjudication. Remember, Butch filed in 1970 and hadn't been back until we reopened this spring. We got TDIU but the evidence shows he's entitled to far more-be it via CUE or just inferred claims never adjudicated. Berta, Theresa and I discussed this on the Wednesday show with Jerrel and John but I thought Hadit members might enjoy the nuts and bolts of how we got there. It's my belief that Butch Long and his wife may be needing a financial planner soon. How VA approaches this after we confront them will speak volumes about the "nonadversarial" process they claim to adhere to. To be honest, I have no idea how many ratings at what percent he is entitled to. At "severe" for 9 MGs, I'd have to say he may get 100% from 1970. We shall see. I'm trying to talk him into getting an eBennies account to watch VA TV. They declined. They don't have internet. http://asknod.org/2016/01/01/cova-myler-v-derwinski-retained-shell-fragments/ Happy New Year to you all. I am so proud of all of you for fighting for your promised benefits. Clear prop.

Hey Berta. Five year substantially protected ratings? Or how about 38 CFR 20.1403. VA can never show up 12 years later and claim they misinterpreted the evidence or even hope to prove it would have manifestly have changed the outcome in 2003. § 20.1403 Rule 1403. What constitutes clear and unmistakable error; what does not. (a) General. Clear and unmistakable error is a very specific and rare kind of error. It is the kind of error, of fact or of law, that when called to the attention of later reviewers compels the conclusion, to which reasonable minds could not differ, that the result would have been manifestly different but for the error. Generally, either the correct facts, as they were known at the time, were not before the Board, or the statutory and regulatory provisions extant at the time were incorrectly applied.(b) Record to be reviewed—(1) General. Review for clear and unmistakable error in a prior Board decision must be based on the record and the law that existed when that decision was made.(2) Special rule for Board decisions issued on or after July 21, 1992. For a Board decision issued on or after July 21, 1992, the record that existed when that decision was made includes relevant documents possessed by the Department of Veterans Affairs not later than 90 days before such record was transferred to the Board for review in reaching that decision, provided that the documents could reasonably be expected to be part of the record.(c) Errors that constitute clear and unmistakable error. To warrant revision of a Board decision on the grounds of clear and unmistakable error, there must have been an error in the Board's adjudication of the appeal which, had it not been made, would have manifestly changed the outcome when it was made. If it is not absolutely clear that a different result would have ensued, the error complained of cannot be clear and unmistakable.(d) Examples of situations that are not clear and unmistakable error—(1) Changed diagnosis. A new medical diagnosis that “corrects” an earlier diagnosis considered in a Board decision.(2) Duty to assist. The Secretary's failure to fulfill the duty to assist.(3) Evaluation of evidence. A disagreement as to how the facts were weighed or evaluated.

VAMC= the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). VARO= Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). The VAMCs have nothing to do with your claim. If you use the VA medical system, the call was an appointment reminder or a query for information for you to obtain a flu/shingles/pneumonia shot. Your hospital is not going to be calling you about a DRO review. As for that last question, unless you specifically requested a DRO hearing, you will only get a DRO review. At a hearing, you can opt to go on or off the record. If you go off the record and lose, you'll never get that info or new evidence you hoped to present into the record that day. You can always submit it with a SOC rebuttal document or waiver of review at the BVA on appeal so it isn't a lost cause. DRO hearings are great if you have exculpatory evidence that will show dispositively that you should prevail. If you just show up with a he said/she said argument, you'll lose and have then wasted about 560 days (Oakland and Houston) to 645 days (Detroit, Baltimore, St. Pete's). A DRO review has to walk the Dec. Review Officer right into the Claymore kill zone to be effective. A pair of nexus letters is like .308 enfilading fire on both sides of it. Remember this is akin to the old "force multiplier with tactical air support" theorem. Two nexus letters to their one, with both of your docs having read the c-files and saying so. Solid evidence clearly showing service connection and chronicity. They either surrender or retreat and abandon the field. Never go in and bluff with a pair of twos.

Jez, if you guys/gals believe anything you see or read on eBennies, you need to start smoking a different flavor of tobacco. It's usually credible about two months after you win/lose. But not always. Ebennies should always begin with "Once upon a time in a small RO near the King's castle..."

(e) Disease associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents. If a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, the following diseases shall be service-connected if the requirements of § 3.307(a)(6) are met even though there is no record of such disease during service, provided further that the rebuttable presumption provisions of § 3.307(d) are also satisfied.AL amyloidosisChloracne or other acneform disease consistent with chloracneType 2 diabetes (also known as Type II diabetes mellitus or adult-onset diabetes)Hodgkin's diseaseIschemic heart disease (including, but not limited to, acute, subacute, and old myocardial infarction; atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease including coronary artery disease (including coronary spasm) and coronary bypass surgery; and stable, unstable and Prinzmetal's angina)All chronic B-cell leukemias (including, but not limited to, hairy-cell leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia)Multiple myelomaNon-Hodgkin's lymphomaParkinson's diseaseAcute and subacute peripheral neuropathyPorphyria cutanea tardaProstate cancerRespiratory cancers (cancer of the lung, bronchus, larynx, or trachea)Soft-tissue sarcoma (other than osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, Kaposi's sarcoma, or mesothelioma)Note 1:The term “soft-tissue sarcoma” includes the following:Adult fibrosarcomaDermatofibrosarcoma protuberansMalignant fibrous histiocytomaLiposarcomaLeiomyosarcomaEpithelioid leiomyosarcoma (malignant leiomyoblastoma)RhabdomyosarcomaEctomesenchymomaAngiosarcoma (hemangiosarcoma and lymphangiosarcoma)Proliferating (systemic) angioendotheliomatosisMalignant glomus tumorMalignant hemangiopericytomaSynovial sarcoma (malignant synovioma)Malignant giant cell tumor of tendon sheathMalignant schwannoma, including malignant schwannoma with rhabdomyoblastic differentiation (malignant Triton tumor), glandular and epithelioid malignant schwannomasMalignant mesenchymomaMalignant granular cell tumorAlveolar soft part sarcomaEpithelioid sarcomaClear cell sarcoma of tendons and aponeurosesExtraskeletal Ewing's sarcomaCongenital and infantile fibrosarcomaMalignant ganglioneuroma Nevertheless, if you can get your doctor to say it in a nexus, it could win. Long shot? yep. But a shot if you did it yourself. Win or Die

Good point above on rationale for not taking a claim. I agree with BCN but we cannot make it a requirement that attorneys be polite, timely or efficient. If that were the case, we would expect the VA to aspire to that high standard as well. Veterans have, historically, been given short shrift judicially as well as with legal representation. Is it any more (or less) ethical to take a POA from you and then become inaccessible or refuse to return your calls such as innumerable VSOs do? Rudeness is acquired art form taught from birth-be it an attorney or a 'free' outfit. I have always smiled and proceeded on claims even when VA is rude and inefficient. Serving the well-chilled revenge dish at the end is reward enough. I took particular pleasure in sending one law dog a letter after I helped a gal get her CUE back to 1978. He had declined with no reason as well. My note was short, too. " How do you guys make any money when you turn down the easy ones? This took Sheila 14 months and she didn't even have to leave Winston Salem for the BVA." Harry Highpants didn't even answer me but it was worth the 42 cents. One thing I have always cherished is the camaraderie here on Hadit. Unlike a certain Veterans 'pink' site where rudeness is endemic, Veterans here enjoy a warm experience free from recriminations and back biting. I expect no less on my site and pride Veterans for keeping it that way. Many attorneys eventually acquire an attitude of indifference towards the job. Where VA claims are concerned, one who has never been a Veteran is at a strategic disadvantage in trying to comprehend what we endured. 'Hurry up and wait' has been our VA call sign since discharge. Worse, ignoring us or losing our claims seems to be par for the course. To have someone who purports to be in the business of fixing this offer a simple "No thanks" with a small explanation would be appreciated. You can't always get what you want. Vote with your feet. When you find a good attorney, share them with us here. That's why this forum exists. VSOs are only a small part of the judicial picture available to Veterans. The more complicated the claim, the more legal experience needed to bear on it.

Many of you do not understand this. VA attorneys, like all attorneys, by law are required to perform 30+ hours of pro bono work every year just to keep their license to practice. With that said, think about VA attorneys in particular. In most fields, they get 33% to 40% of an award for ambulance chasing or whatever they do. VA attorneys can charge up to 33% and some do- like Bergman and Bergman. Most will only take 20% as the top limit. Do you realize how blessed you are to find even one willing to take your claim? Would you rack up a student loan for a 3-year Juris Doctorate (on top of 4 years for your BA) just to take a tinnitus claim that will win your client a $4,000 retro check? That might take you four years to get the $400 (20%). It wouldn't even pay one month on the interest for your student loan(s). Does that make sense? Some I have met insist VA attorneys purposefully prolong a Vet's claim to get more retro. Please introduce me to one. That's almost as humorous as the VSO rep who says "Why pay an attorney? We do it for free." Of course, they rarely win the $, but that is beside the point. 0% for tinnitus is a win, right? I'm preparing to go into this too. I would have no desire to hang a fellow Vet out for an extra two or three years with lousy representation to get more money. To imply any attorney who practices before the VA and only asks for 20% when s/he could get far more in SSA claims or personal injury lawsuits shows a lack of how the world turns. Time is money. Offices have a greeter who types and demands a paycheck. The lights overhead consume electricity and you have to pay the rent. The copy machine eats paper and ink which doesn't grow on trees. The USPS demands money to mail things to Janesville, Wisconsin. If there isn't any money in it, or very little, why bother? Or better yet, why bother taking the hemorrhoid denial to the BVA and a 0% win? Your paycheck will be...wait for it....$0 with the exception of some reduced EAJA fees you have to wait a year to obtain. VA attorneys have to pick and choose their battles. If there is little or no money in it, your only shot at it is a VSO. If it's for 35 years of retro on a CUE, an attorney may have to hire a specialist out of his own funds to develop the claim and the ensuing appeal. If you're broke, they still have to pay their hired help and the lease. If (and when) they make any money off a settlement, they have to deduct expenses and overhead which can make it a poor investment even less than 20%. What happens if you lose? No money for Mr. Attorney. Perhaps that can give you a better idea of why some VA attorneys are picky about who they represent. I would be if I needed the money. After speaking and dealing with hundreds of VA law dogs over the years, one thing is certain. They do not like to take on PTSD cases. Far too often, about a year or two into it, the Vet loses his temper and rescinds his POA. All the hard work goes down the drain. They suddenly have zero to show for it. Let that sink in. Finding a VA attorney who will take your case is often difficult and now you can perhaps see why. In addition, there aren't very many of them who are skilled-just like good VSOs. Finding a good one who can win is dicey. Just be glad there are some even willing to help at all. If I were 27 again and had a brand new sheepskin in my hand, VA law would be the absolute last thing I'd be thinking about unless I really liked helping Vets.

Navy 1966 says "Most VSO'S that I know submit their claims through another VSO.". There is a reason for this. Most VSO Service Officers are not licensed or registered to represent Veterans. You have to take the test I am awaiting presently for non-attorney practitioner credentials. You have to pass 75 of the 100 multiple choice questions on this test. It speaks volumes that either the wannabe VSO service reps cannot pass the test or that they have no interest in even attempting it. This is why there is a bottleneck in getting a good VSO service rep. Very sad. Merry Christmas to you all.