free_spirit_etc

I think your headache claim got lost in the shuffle of trying to deny you the anxiety claim. I agree with you - the dates do NOT add up. The letter you attached was DATED July 13, 2004. In that letter they state they received your NOD for the March 23, 2004 denial of SC for anxiety and headaches. NOW they are saying they informed you July 12, 2004 that you were denied???? Hmmm Strange timeline March 23, 2004 - claim denied. July 12, 2004 - they notify you the claim was denied July 13, 2004 - They write you a letter and tell you they received your NOD for the claim they just told you was denied the day before? Nope. It doesn't add up. I think they lost the headache claim in the shuffle. And now, rather than admit it -they are trying to act like they informed you that claim was denied - and that you didn't appeal it. But in all actuality, I think they dropped the ball on the headache claim - and kept you fighting for your life on the anxiety one. Maybe it is time to pull out the old "inextricably intertwined" issue... Your claim was FULL of how the doctor in the service treated you for headaches. One of those letters from the doctor's you posted a couple of weeks ago stated that you had been on medication for headaches that was Secondary to your anxiety (or something along those lines)... This claim was SCREAMING OUT SC headaches - even if you wouldn't have specifically filed for them. Just like being unemployable - the headaches weren't just buried in the evidence - they said over and over again that you began being treated for headaches in the service, that you kept being treated for headaches. Dot one. Dot two. Not too many dots to connect. You might want to ask them to clarify why they notifed you on July 12 that your headache claim was denied (and that you don't have a record of it - ask for a copy) and notified you on July 13 that they had recieved your NOD for anxiety / headaches. I doubt they have a copy of the July 12 denial. It doesn't make much sense... And ask if you need to file an NOD on the fact that they didn't adjudicate your headaches - which was your understanding was still a pending claim. Or in the event they think it is not pending - should you file an NOD for their failure to acknowledge your SC headches which was OBVIOUS in the evidence of record - and inextricably intertwined with your SC anxiety.. or if it is still open. I know they had the Court Case a couple years ago that said that anything that wasn't specifically granted on a decision was denied - or something close to that. I guess they wanted to cut out all the open unadjudicated claims -- So it was something like if you filed for 3 things and they only addressed one - you had to NOD appeal the other ones -- Some of the websites were recommending adding some blanket statement like -- "I appeal everything else that wasn't addressed - or something like that - to make sure nothing is missed. I haven't followed what has played out from that court decision - or from their recommendations though. Also - as the court decision was in -I THINK 2006 - I am not sure if it would apply to a 2004 denial. Free (doesn't seem to be sure of very much)

Rway, http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/cfr20/404/404-0403.htm The above link provides a pretty good explaination of how benefits can offset each other. Basically, you daughter wouldn't get the amount you are now receiving - but if some of her benefits are reduced - for the family maximum, then you drawing some or all on your own record would help boost hers in proportion. They have all kinds of formulas for how they figure things out. The Social Security office would most likely be the best place to check. They could probably give you pretty close to the actual figures - so you would know for sure, instead of guessing. My son has been on SSI for 15 years. Currently I am having all kinds of problems with a couple SSA employees at our local office, but overall, through the years, I have found MANY Social Security workers to be people who really wanted to help claimants all they could. Free

William, I am not really sure. Especially based on: 1. What very little I know about 1151 claims. 2. What little I know regarding YOUR claim. 1151's aren't my area of what I have studied about the VA so far - as they haven't affected MY claim. I have just picked up bits and pieces here and there. But from what I gather - they can be much more complicated that other claims. But don't the tort claims and the section 1151 claims have the same basis - but different channels to travel to "resolve" them. Logically, I would think if you qualify to file one of them - you would qualify to file the other one. But I also think they have offsets for one against the other on those. Check it out though - as I am not sure. Berta is really knowledgable about both types of claims. The legal aspects of them are mostly out of my league at the moment. Now - as far as your shoulder - I might know something about shoulders... Free

On a lighter note - I am now almost qualified to pass the bar exam in regard to any and every regulation involving Survivor Benefits for Social Security. I almost have the entire Social Security Act, The Program Operations Manual (POMS) and half the Social Security Rulings memorized by now. I kid you not - I know I have spent HUNDREDS of hours reading and studying these. So if any one else gets the run around on Survivor Benefits - I can help you with some of the laws and regulations. Maybe I could do trainings for the local office. I certainly HOPE this is discrimintation - because if it is not - the local office has even bigger problems than I thought. Though I dislike discrimination - I do hope that they singled me out for this treatment - and that they don't treat everone this way. Free

To add to the Social Security is evil post - but it was long enough just concerning my son's claim - so I thought I would so a different thread for this one. They have REALLY played games with MY claim. Feb. 5 2007 - my husband died. Feb. 14 2007 - I report his death to Social Security and they take a phone application for lump sum death payment. They tell me to go to the local office to apply for Survivor Benefits. Feb. 19 2007 - I receive a Notice of AWARD from Social Security - granting me the lump sum death payment. It also includes the blanket closeout - telling me I am not entitled to other benefits - but if I think I am - I will need to fill out another application. February 21 2007 - I go to the local office. They allow me to apply for payment of the last check due my husband, but tell me I am not eligible to apply for survivor benefits. They also will not let my son apply. They tell me he is not a child. (Hmm) Then they tell me he is not disabled. (He has been on SSI since he was 14 - is 28 now). Then they tell me he isn't my husband's child (Doesn't that seem like something you would ASK someone, rather than TELL them?) Then they finally decide he CAN apply - but only if the adoption is finalized. (which is not true - he was also his step-child and equitably adopted child). They give us an appointment for when we anticipated the adoption would be final. March 16 2007 - The adoption court date was delayed - but I kept the SSA appointment and asked that they allow my son to apply as an equitably adopted child. She allows him to apply. Takes the Adoption prceeding papers - and a copy of my husband's Will in which he stated he wanted my son to be considered his child - and that in the event he died prior to the completion of the adoption - he wanted it to be completed. She says she has all she needs. I asked to apply for Mother's Benefits. She tells me there are no Mother's benefits for equitably adopted children (NOT true - still a child entitled under the worker in your care). And she told me that even if the adoption is completed - my son would have to be PHYSICALLY disabled and require my physical care in order for me to get Mother's benefits. (NOT true - A MENTALLY disabled child is presumed to be in your care if they live with you, unless their is evidence to the contrary). But I was not allowed to apply for Benefits. And there is no online application for Mother's Benefits. Gotta do it at the local office. March something - I recieved notice I would get my husband's last check and informed that I was not entitled to any other benefits on my husband's record. March something - my son's application was denied - as there was no evidence he was living with my husband or receiving support from him when he died. (Something she never ASKED). April 4 2007 - I file an appeal stating that I have not been allowed to apply for Mother's benefits and that I request to be allowed to apply for them prior to a decision being made that I am not entitled to them. I hand deliver it to the local office. Did not get it stamped. April 19 2007 - Ms. L__ calls me to discuss my appeal. She sets an appointment to take a phone application May 4. May 4 2007 - She calls. She still doesn't understand why I filed an appealed. She tries to explain I can't be entitled unless my son is approved. I try to explain I appealed because I received a notice that said I was not eligible - the letter said I had 60 days to appeal - I hadn't even been allowed to apply - I was appealing the decision made that I was not eligible for benefits I had not been allowed to apply for. I informed her my son's adoption was finalized. (My husband adopted my son). She told me he should file a NEW claim - as he would be automaticlally APPROVED now. And I should file my claim at the same time. She set us an office appointment for May 18, 2007. May 18 2007 - We go to the office. Mr. S:( takes our applications. I ask about submitting evidence about support and living with. (the issues on which my son was initially denied). He tells me it is not needed - as my son was adopted and WOULD be approved. I asked to submit it anyway (because of the harm of having other agencies getting ahold of the Social Security "You weren't living with him or receiving support from him" crap. I wanted his record to be correct. Mr. S:(refused to take such evidence. He told me it was a moot point - since my son would be approved anyway. Mr. S:( told ME I was only being allowed to apply because I INSISTED on applying. (He wasn't very encouraging about my odds of being approved). May 27 2007 - Mr. S:( was in such a hurry to deny me that he couldn't even wait the ten days you have for correcting any errors on your application. He denied my claim NINE DAYS after I applied. This was a MONTH before he even processed my son's application (upon whom approval my own claim would be contingent). Of course, he who said no evidence of support or living with was needed ALSO denied my son's claim because the evidence didn't show he was living with my husband or receiving support from him. (I didn't know that it was HE who denied the claim at first - it wouldn't occur to me that the same person who refused to accept any evidence would deny you due to lack of evidence). June 5 2007 - I appealed the May 27 decision nine days after I received it. July 16, 2007 I receive a letter from Mr. S:( that says "No request for appeal has been filed to date because we did not have a claim to appeal before we took your initial claim.” No one at Social Security could tell me what that meant - until they tracked down Mr. S:( - who had sent the letter. He told me NO appeals had been filed in my case. Not the April 4 appeal and NOT the June 5 appeal. I informed him that the toll-free number verified they received my June appeal - but not the April appeal. Mr. S:( insisted I had NO right to appeal in April because I hadn't file an application yet. I again informed him I had recieved a notice that I wasn't entitled to other benefits - and I appealed THAT decision. As I still had not been granted benefits - my appeal was STILL active. Mr. S:( insisted he did not have ANY copies of ANY appeals in my file. (If he didn't have a copy - why did he send me the letter telling me no appeals ahd been filed because there was nothing to appeal - and why was he standing there arguing with me about how I had no right to appeal in April) He just wanted to PRETEND he didn't have the appeals. I handed Mr Ssssss copies of my appeals and asked him to make a copy. He handed them back and told me he didn't need them - as there was nothing to appeal. I told Mr. Stein I wasn't stupid. He looked directly at me. His eyes changed - a "moment of fear" kind of look - He realized I wasn't stupid. He knew that I knew. I figured he would pretty much do whatever it took to cover his tracks in this. Bingo. Right. Mr. Ssssss sent me ANOTHER letter that day - telling me I must have "accidentally gathered" my appeals when I was at the office and asking me to return them. I figured the game was to ACT LIKE I had not TRIED to appeal until July. To act like I had JUST then come by with the April appeal - and had gathered it up when I left. So he could get it back - send it in - and not mention that it was HIM who never filed it. I did not return the appeal to him until AUGUST 8. I wrote a letter and told him I didn't accidentally "gather" my appeal. That I had handed it to him - and he had handed it back and refused to take it. I also submitted ANOTHER appeal. Dated August 8 2007. In this appeal - I SPECIFICALLY appealed the decision that was made to not allow me to appeal in April. I asked for Social Security to make a determination as to whether I was denied benefits and whether I had the right to appeal that decision. I spelled out what was going on - and how Social Security wasn't allowing me to appeal. I asked that they accpet my April appeal as valid. I got my August appeal date stamped - but the toll-free number had no record of an August appeal. They did have a record of my June appeal. and a JULY appeal. I submitted NO appeal in July. I imagine that Mr. Ssssssss submitted my April appeal then, and acted like it was just them submitted to them. (i.e. Not timely). I was mostly concerned with the April appeal to protect my filing date. My June appeal WAS received - but it would only go back to the MAY decision. I received my - what I THOUGHT was a reconsideration in October. I suspected that whomever wrote it was "in on" this game - because of the wording - and the selective vagueness and the selective specificity. (I.e. "You applied in EARLY 2007. You were notifed ON FEB 19 that you weren't entitled to monthly benefits. Your "JUNE-JULY appeals... ) Anyway they decided my "June - July appeals were not "timely." Now get this. They not only did not acknowledge I submitted an appeal in April - they also decided my JUNE 5 appeal was NOT timely. Though the June 5 appeal was appealing the decision made nine days earlier. And though the decision was the first decision made AFTER I was allowed to APPLY for Mother's Benefits. And though the denial letter SPECIFICALLY SAID I had the RIGHT to appeal - the Oct 15 2007 letter states that the May 27, 2007 decision was merely a “supplemental notice after February 19, 2007, expounding on the initial determination.” and is “irrelevant in this matter.” So what THEY are saying is that I did NOT appeal the Notice sent to me that said I wasn't entitled to monthly benefits - FIVE DAYS AFTER REPORTING MY HUSBAND'S DEATH to them. And therefore I do NOT have the right to appeal ANY decision - even decisions made after I filed the application - because those aren't decisions - they are merely supplemental notices expounding on the inital determination (i.e. notice 5 days after reporting my husband's death). WHAT a BUNCH of hog wash!! I was aggravated - but I filed a Reconsideration Request and a Request for a Hearing by an ALJ - and figured I would get some justice at some point in the game - just gotta get it out of the hands of the game players - and move it up. WELLLLLLL - not so easy. They are pretending my son didn't file a request for a hearing - but I just recently sent a copy of the date stamped request directly to the hearing office. I sent a copy of MINE too. (Social Security is saying they have NO record of EITHER of MY requests). But now - I looked at it more - and read some more laws - and realized. My Oct 15 letter was NOT a Reconsideration. It was a DISMISSAL of my appeal. It did not SAY they dismissed my appeal - but it says they cannot accept my appeals as "timely." ANd it does not SAY I have no right to appeal their decision - but it doesn't have the paragraph on appeal rights either. I read the law - and if your appeal is dismissed as not timely - you do not have appeal rights to appeal THAT decision. So basically, they were able to block my appeal from getting higher up the ladder - and I have NO right to APPEAL that!!! They have pretty much tried to assure that anything I send will be sent just to THEM - so THEY can decide whether to reopen and revise - because they took away my right to appeal. They had NO right to do that. I DID appeal in April. Mr. SSSss wouldn't submit it. I DID appeal in June. And the June appeal WAS valid - even if I had NOT appealed in April. And I have a DATE STAMPED copy of my AUGUST appeal - where I speficially told them I was TRYING to appeal but that Social Security wouldn't LET me!!! But nope. With their wishy-washy - "You applied in EARLY 2007. Your "June-July appeals cannot be honored as timely" "THe fact that you were sent SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICES (i.e. DECISIONS) after Feb 19 expounding on the original determination is irrelevant in this matter." they were able to take away all my rights to due process and keep the ball in THEIR court! DAMN THEM! Whomever made the Oct 15 decision is IN on Mr. Sssss's Game! They know dang well what is going on. Again, if I am NOT eligible then it should be pretty easy to deny me fair and square. There would be NO need for all the games. They have wasted HOURS of my time -- hours and hours of research (because on my son't claim every law they quoted was misapplied). I know I have to watch my step in dealing with a congressinal inquiry - because they will just give THEM the story of my untimely appeals - so I have to really fine tune my request so they can't dance around it and convince the Senator I am crazy and explain it away. I did find a way that I MIGHT get around it - by filing a MISINFORMATION claim. The basis of this is that Social Security employees MISINFORMED me - and prevented me from applying for benefits until AFTER the date the Oct 15 decision said I lost all right to appeal had passed. The Misinformation claim has got to be adjudicated - for someone to make a decision to see if Social Security employees misinformed me - and even if it is denied - it HAS appeal rights- meaning I can appeal up to where someone with some brains can see the dang game. So it would re-open my appeal rights. I certainly have enough evidence with the appeals I have date stamped - and the fact that they never got in my file when I submitted them, and my phone records showing that Social Security CALLED ME after my April 4 appeal - and how my April 4 appeal specifically SAYS they wouldn't let me apply for benefits and also asks them to check their regulations in regard to the reasons they were giving me that I am not eligible. Surely SOMEONE in the system will be able to SEE the game they have been playing. And THEY KNOW that they had no right to consider my June 5 appeal as untimely. But they also know that if they determine it is untimely - the decision is not appealable. AND Hopefully if I can appeal up - I will get a chance to at least have my evidence to entitlement be seen. (It isn't rocket science. My son is my husband's legally adopted child. My son is mentally disabled. He lives with me. Even THEIR doctors say he needs supervision!!!) Geez! (Of course, the Oct 15 decision says he is "totally emancipated and not under the parental control of any one at any time after Dec 2005." That's news to me!! I have NO idea WHAT occured when he was 26 to emancipate him - except for that is the month my husband was considered disabled - so it is a convenient time to decide my son was emancipated). SOOOOOOO - I am working on the Misinformation Claim - to open my appeal rights back up - and thinking of sending a copy to a Senator - and asking THEM to follow up on it - and also asking if they can request the decision be made by someone other than the local office. I have filed a discrimination complaint - on behalf of my son and myself. But we haven't heard anything on that yet. And also I don't know if they will handle the complaint in my case, as I don't have any disability, age, race, concerns. It is just outright discrimination. I might have a basis for retaliation discrimintation. But that has to be based on being discriminated against because you filed a complaint. And they are just discriminating because they are evil and they decided right off the bat I shouldn't get benefits and have done everything in their power to keep that from happening. Anyway - I ahve been somewhat busy with Social Security for the past year and a half. It should have been as easy as filling out an application, giving them a little bit of evidence, and getting approved. But it has been kind of like being in hell and having assigned seating next to your ex-spouse. Any ideas?????????? Free

I cannot think of another word that would aptly describe my attitude about certain Social Security workers now except the word "evil." Am trying to cover my bases - but am open to suggestions. This a a claim for survivors benefits. Case History My husband died Feb 5, 2007. I Reported my husband's death to Social Security Feb. 14, 2007. They did a phone application for Lump Sum Death Payment. Told me I would have to go to the local office to apply for survivor's benefits. My son is in my care. He lives with me. He is disabled (on SSI since he was 14). And my husband was in the process of legally adopting him when he died. Our state adoption laws direct that if an intended adoptive parent dies after the court has obtained jurisdiction - the adoption shall proceed to final judgment. It basically protects the child's right to be adopted by that person if the person dies during the adoption process. The Senate Transcripts on the passing of that law even SAY they passed the law in order to uphold that child's right to get insurance, Social Security, etc. of the parent who was adopting them. The FINAL Adoption Order was entered after my husband's death - My son is now the legal son of my husband and myself - and he has a new birth certificate listing my husband as his father. We are clearly entitled to benefits - as my son is my husband's legally adopted child, he is mentally disabled, and he is in my care. He should also qualify in the other categories - as he was living with us at the time of my husband's death - and my husband contributed to his support...though they keep ignoring all the evidence - such as bank statements, the fact that his SSI file says he was living with us, etc. etc. They still keep saying, there is no evidence that he was ordinarily living with the number holder when the number holder died, and there is no evidence that the number holder contributed to his support. Ironically, they keep saying the evidence of record shows the child was supported by his own Title whatever (SSI) funds and the LARGE income of his natural mother. ACK! They have NEVER ASKED about support! They have never asked what either my husband or *I* contributed to his support. They told me no evidence of support was needed (because my son was adopted by my husband) --But the same guy who told me that denied his claim because there is no evidence my husband contributed to his support -- and I HAVE sent in evidence of my husband's support - I have NO idea what evidence they have of MY support - yet they continue to say the evidence of record shows my son was supported FULLY by his own funds and MY "large" income. Does it even make sense that a vet - and a military retiree - would marry a woman and bring her disabled child in his home - and refuse to help support the child? Anyway - they know full well that my son is elgible as my husband's adopted child - without all the support and living with games they are playing - which is why they have remained SILENT on the issue of his elgibility as the adopted child of the worker. They wrote two pages of why he isn't eligible as a step-child, equitably adopted child, or child adpted by the surviving spouse - but didn't even MENTION his eligibilty as an adopted child. I am sure if he was not eligible as an adopted child they would have told us - you are not eligible as an adopted child because the adoption wasn't completed until after the worker's death. But they CAN'T say that - because under the laws of the state my son IS the legally adopted child of my husband. So they just stayed silent on the whole dang issue. So - I wrote in January and pointed that out - and sent in the Final Order of Adoption, the Certificate of Adoption that listed my husband as my son's father (which was signed by the JUDGE ON BEHALF of my husband - as my husband was STILL a LEGAL party to the adoption), a copy of the Illinois Adoption Act (750 ILCS 50/14b) Sec. 14b. Death of intended adoptive parent prior to entry of judgment. After any court has acquired jurisdiction over the person of any intended adoptive parent in an adoption proceeding, if the intended adoptive parent dies before entry of final judgment, upon petition by the other intended adoptive parent or the child's guardian ad litem suggesting the death of the intended adoptive parent and asking that the court proceed in absence of the deceased intended adoptive parent to enter a final judgment, in the presence of the other intended adoptive parent or the child to be adopted who is a party to the record, the court shall proceed to hearing and final judgment. The law doesn't just ALLOW the courts to proceed with the adoption - it DIRECTS them to. I even sent a copy of the Sentate Transcript from the passage of the law - where the Senate stated the law was designed so that children would NOT be penalized if the parent who was adopting them died in the interum between the initiation of the adoption and the final order - and SPECIFICALLY said - so the child would be able to receive SOCIAL SECURITY, insurance, etc. from that parent. No question about Congressional intent there. Anyway - I sent all that in - and REQUESTED that they MAKE A DETERMINATION as to whether my son was my husband's LEGALLY ADOPTED CHILD under the LAWS OF ILLINOIS. I requested that they send the question for a legal opinion if neccessary - as POMS directs - as we were even told WAY back in February 2007 my son couldn't apply UNLESS the adoption was finalized (which was bull*&^&*) and they have denied him at both the local and reconsideration (more local, actually) level - and still NO ONE has ADDRESSED the issue of his LEGAL ADOPTION (in their repeated attempts to deny him benefits through other categories). I also sent them: Under POMS GN 00306.001 Determining Status as Child, which states: D. Procedure - FO Development Follow these guidelines in developing child relationship: You must explore all possibilities of entitlement before disallowing a child's claim because the relationship requirements are not met. You may develop the child's relationship under any applicable provisions consecutively or concurrently (e.g., development under State law and section 216(h)(3)). In general, follow the line of development that will permit payment as soon as possible. However, pursue any earlier possible entitlement date once the child is on the rolls. The closest they have come to it is now, 5 months later, Social Security has still not addressed the issue. The letter we received May 12, 2008 states: “The question is reserved as to whether you can be validly adopted in Illinois solely by your natural mother after her husband’s death.” That is NOT the issue - and they are dancing all around it because they know he is eligible as my husband's legally adopted child - but they can't play the "we have no evidence of whatever they pretend to not have evidence of" like they can in the other categories. Additionally - His Oct 15, 2007 denial said if he disagreed - he had to ask for a Hearing. But when we called the toll-free number - they sent us forms for Reconsideration. Due to their game playing - I submitted BOTH. I added in the last paragraph "“Though the October 15, 2007 decision states we must request a hearing before the Administrative Law Judge, the person at the toll-free number sent us Request for Reconsideration forms. To be on the safe side, and to assure that our son is not penalized for submitting the wrong form at the wrong time, we are submitting both. We trust that Social Security will know which one to process.” In response to your statement “You were notified at that time that if you disagreed, you should file a request for a hearing. Nothing was said about filing another request for reconsideration.” and tells us they cannot honor the materials submitted “circa April 2008” as a Request for Reconsideration. They are acting like we didn't request a hearing. Totally ignoring that. Luckily, I took them to ANOTHER local office to submit them (as the office who is doing all this won't submit most of my stuff - and acts like they didn't get it). AND I GOT THEM DATE STAMPED. Because this office is acting like we didn't request a hearing - and even if we send evidence that we did - they will ignore that too - I sent a COPY of the DATE STAMPED Hearing Request DIRECTLY to the Hearing Office - and asked that they accept our RE-submitted hearing Request. I am hoping that will take us around some of the games. I am sending all the material to the Program Service Center now - by certified mail - instead of taking it to the local office - But I think they are just sending it back to the local office to play their games. I submitted a discrimination complaint in February - but have not recieved a response. I called the number it said to call and left a message several weeks ago -but have not received a call back. And every time you call ANYONE in Social Security - their answer is to go to the LOCAL OFFICE to handle it. The local office IS the problem!! So - I submitted the Request for Hearing directly to the Hearing Office - and am HOPING they don't send it BACK to the local office to process - because they are trying their hardest to block anyone else from reviewing this claim. (which is a whole other story on the crap they pulled on MY claim). AND - I am drafting a letter to our Senator - informing him it has been a year since we applied for benefits - and they still haven't even tried to determine if my son is legally adopted - and ask for the Senator to inquire about the status of the legal adoption determination. I think if he will do that - then that might bump the claim up past the people that are playing games with it. I also think it will be hard for them to say he isn't legally adopted and explain to a senator why they decided to not follow the laws of our state in doing that. I also thought of asking the Senator to have someone outside the local office look at the claim. If we are not entitled to benefits it should be easy enough to deny us without resorting to all the games. The fact that they need to play games is telling in and of itself. Any other ideas? Free

Does the lawyer only get a percentage of the EXTRA - as in only a percentage of what he gets Dave above and beyond what Dave already got? I would think that as they ASKED if it was his intent to file a 1151 claim - that they acknowledged the claim was infered from the evidence. But yes - I agree it could be a good idea to get an attorney on a CUE claim. The VA defends against those claims to the hilt. And then you get into the legality of the claims as much - or more - than the actual facts of the claim. Or you can argue a CUE all the way up only to have them decide it wasn't a CUE, but that you have some other issue you can pursue (like the claim actually still being open) or something - that keeps you in the ball game but can waste a few years in the process. Also - one thing that has bothered me about them not letting have a lawyer until late in the game - is that by the time you get to the lawyer point - you have already argued certain things in a certain way. And then they say --"way back then, the vet didn't argue this, they argued that.." Well yes, way back when the vet couldn't have a lawyer. So getting a lawyer earlier can help prevent a lawyer later having to deal with the hand he was dealt from not being allowed to be in the process from the start (i.e. untangling the whole dang thing). Good Luck to Dave!!! Free

Nope. They haven't paid it. On the phone they told me they could block the reclaimation - then they told me they would take it back and issue me a check. On the IRIS - they told me their was no evidence I was his widow (which explains why I have sent them multiple copies of the wedding license) - And geez - You would think that if they consider the Death Certificate to be credible evidence that he died - they could also look at the spot that names ME as his widow - and think that it is more likely than not that the person named as the widow on a death certificate stands a good chance of being the widow. Anyway - then they told me they couldn't stop the process of the money being reclaimed - and made no offer to send me a check. Oddly enough - after them having a HOLD on the money - where it was still in my account - but I couldn't USE it - for five or six months after my husband's death- I finally IRISed them and aked them to either RELEASE the hold on the money OR take the dang thing! It ticked me off every time I looked at my bank account and saw I had access to $225 LESS than what was IN my account because the VA still had a hold on it. But they responded they couldn't do anything about it. It was not until I got the C-file and saw they had actually put in a trasmittal to reverse the overcharge and NOT take it back in June - that I could try to do anything about them taking the money back in August. I also have an IRIS in asking about my burial expense claim. That has been all messed up too. I had his father file a claim for Plot allowance and I filed the claim for burial expenses ($300 EACH claim). He filled out the section labled PLOT ALLOWANCE ONLY - so they even acknowledge on the FORM that someone might claim that separately - which is why I had him fill out a separate claim - as he purchased the plot (he wanted him to be buried in the same cemetary as his mother and brother). I put on MY claim - under the section that ASKS if there will be any other claims - that HIS FATHER - And named him by name - would be filing a claim for PLOT ALLOWANCE ONLY! They DENIED his claim - because they said their records show that the funeral expenses were paid by ME. They sent him a waiver for ME to sign in order for him to be paid. But the waiver was a FULL waiver - meant to be completed by a creditor. It says that NO bills are due and owed and I WAIVE my right to be paid. I IRISed them - Asked why I have to waive my right to the $300 burial allowance for his father to be paid the $300 plot allowance. They said we EACH have to sign a waiver for the other one to be paid. But the forms they sent don't give us the option to do anything but waive the right to be paid at all. The forms also said "I certify that the amounts in section whatever are true." and I was supposed to sign it - but they didn't send a copy of section whatever that I was supposed to be certifying was true. So I did not sign the waiver - but wrote all over the form that I was waiving the right to be paid PLOT ALLOWANCE - I was asking to be paid BURIAL allowance. And I sent a letter explaining the situation - and indicating that I could not sign a form certifying things to be true that I didn't know to be true (because they weren't included on the form) and I was NOT a creditor, and was was waiving my right to plot allowance only. Geez...if it is so hard for them to figure that out - WHY does the FORM itself make it where those two items can be claimed separately by two separate people - even having a space where you LIST the OTHER person who will be claiming the OTHER part. Anyway - I haven't heard squat since the January 2008 letter telling me they are working on the claim. In the C-file there is an email where they were LOOKING for the burial claim - asking if anyone had seen it. Then there is a letter to my father-in-law dated November 2007 - telling him they lost his claim and asking him to re-send it. I need to get ahold of him to see if he did. I sent an IRIS the other day asking for a update for the status of my burial claim. Maybe they are holding off until they can scrape $300 together. I don't know. As far as your POA - doesn't it just tick you off when the people that are supposed to be helping you spend more time getting in the way than they do helping? I used to have a daily prayer - "God, please protect me from those who are looking out for my best interests." Those are the people who can really mess you up. Sometimes I find it easier to deal with sworn enemies - At least you know where you stand with them - and they aren't in there messing things up "for your own good." Free

I really need to start pulling things together for my VA claim. I have only worked on it here and there. But I have been trying to get a copy of the C-file for a year and just got it last week. My one-year deadline for submitting evidence and having my claim readjudicated ends June 7 - a year since getting my notice of what they need. I can have everything else pulled together EXCEPT the IMO. I asked for an extension of time on the deadline. I mean c'mon - it takes them a year to send me the C-file - and then I am supposed to pull it all together in two weeks. I guess I could have gotten an IMO without it. BUT I also don't want to spend that much money on an IMO only to have them discredit it because the doctor didn't have access to the C-file (that THEY didn't send). As the basis of my husband's claim is post-service diagnosis of cancer - and as lung cancer is pretty much asymptomatic until late stages (and the fact that my husband had NO symptoms when it was detected - unless you count fatigue) the SMR's aren't that relevant. But still - the VA wants the IMO to say they LOOKED at the SMR's. I asked for an extension of time - and kept getting answers to everything BUT that - so I kept asking until I finally got a response acknowledging that I had asked for it. However, the response said they sent it on to someone who will check the regulations and see if I can get an extension. I probably won't hear from them until AFTER the deadline. So I guess I will send everything in - once again ask for an extension on the IMO with my submission - IRIS them 20 more times - send in the IMO when I get it - ask that my claim be readjudicated when I send it - IRIS them some more. Heck! The two most important papers I needed were: 1. His discharge physical. 2. The latest VA Medical Opinion that was used to deny my claim. His discharge physical has mysteriously disappeared from his file. The copy of the VA Medical Opinon has NO date and NO signature - but DOES say OVER at the bottom - BUT they did NOT send me the second page. It is merely a hand written note on a "Report of Contact" form. VERY unprofessional. It just says that he was out of the one year presumptive period when the cancer was diagnosed - and that the symptoms in the SMRS were from viral infections and not related to the cancer. No sh**&*& We already KNEW that. The doctor did NOT address whether it was more likely than not that his cancer started in service - which has been the BASIS of his claim from the BEGINNING. But they dance all around the issue - because they know they can't actually say it is more likley than not that it started AFTER service. Actually, the VA didn't even ask him to address that. The VA only asked him to review the inservice symptoms to see if they were related to cancer. You can tell how well they read all the medical documents that show that cancer is most likely asymptomatic until late stages, and his medical notes indicating HE was asymptomatic all along. Heck! If the very nature of the disease is that it HAS NO symptoms - then what are they playing around with the symptom game for? It runs contrary to the KNOWN NATURE of the disease. To require someone to have symptoms for a disease that is asymptomatic - to prove they had it - runs contrary to medically established standards. But I am not going to question their medical opinion as "invalid." Becaushe their opinion doesn't actually HURT my claim - at least at the BVA level. If they take their opinion that my husband had no symptoms in service OVER my IMO's opinion that his cancer STARTED in service - THEN I will address it in a NOD. And I think the claim should fly at the BVA - unless they remand it. The question is - when did it start. The BVA has awarded lots of cancer claims on the theory that slow growing cancer didn't pop up over night - the rate my husband's cancer would have had to have grown to have reached the size it did in the short time before it was diagnosed post service is outside the realm of medical probability - and the VA - with all their dancing - have never bothered to get an opinion that REFUTES what my IMO will say. So I would hope the BVA would grant it. But they could also remand it - and ask for a VA or outside opinion on the issue of the start date. I don't look for them to do that though. We have submitted so much treatesy info from extremely reputable sources (National Cancer Institute, Major Universities, etc.) to back our position - that I would hope the BVA would realize that the only way a doctor could refute our position would be to argue a point that is not in line with medically established standards. But so far - I have been so busy with Social Security - who have been particularly evil - that I haven't had as much time to work on the VA claim as I need. Free

I previously submitted a claim to be allowed to keep my husband's month of death payment. Upon receipt of my husband's C-file, I found that a transmittal form was sent to Finance Operations on 6-28-2007 that states "Surviving Spouse entitled to one time payment of amt of comp or pen received by veteran at time of death. Remove overpayment (08E Transaction) if payment is not returned. 38 CFR 3.20©" However, these funds were reclaimed from my checking account in August 2007.As these funds were taken out of my bank account 2 months after the overpayment transaction was supposed to be removed, what is the procedure for being repaid the funds that were taken from my account in error? Thank you,XXX Mrs. xxxx: I will forward your inquiry on for processing. Sincerely, Matthew xxx Thank you very much Matthew! I appreciate your promptness and thank you for helping the vets and us widows! If I get to the Pearly Gates before you do - I'll put in a good word for you! :)xxxx Ms. xxx:I am happy to be of service! You will receive a response in them mail to your inquiry.(PS - I hope you don't have to visit those gates for a very long time!):)Matthew xxx

Do you have any compensable complications from Diabetes that should also be rated? Free 7913 Diabetes mellitus Requiring more than one daily injection of insulin, restricted diet, and regulation of activities (avoidance of strenuous occupational and recreational activities) with episodes of ketoacidosis or hypoglycemic reactions requiring at least three hospitalizations per year or weekly visits to a diabetic care provider, plus either progressive loss of weight and strength or complications that would be compensable if separately evaluated 100 Requiring insulin, restricted diet, and regulation of activities with episodes of ketoacidosis or hypoglycemic reactions requiring one or two hospitalizations per year or twice a month visits to a diabetic care provider, plus complications that would not be compensable if separately evaluated 60 Requiring insulin, restricted diet, and regulation of activities 40 Requiring insulin and restricted diet, or; oral hypoglycemic agent and restricted diet 20 Manageable by restricted diet only 10 Note (1): Evaluate compensable complications of diabetes separately unless they are part of the criteria used to support a 100 percent evaluation. Noncompensable complications are considered part of the diabetic process under diagnostic code 7913. Note (2): When diabetes mellitus has been conclusively diagnosed, do not request a glucose tolerance test solely for rating purposes.

Sounds like you have a strong claim. Will it be granted? It SHOULD. But you never know about the VA. But your dots seem easy enough to connect, even for the simple minded. Hopefully you have enough to get the claim granted right off the bat. Free

ACK! I heard those helicopter crashes are horrid -- a straight down kind of a thing... Welcome aboard simple fly! You will find "good people" here to help you with your claim. Free

Thanks Berta. You made some really good points. At this point she doesn't really know what kind of cancer he had. She said his daughter knows that. His daughter is a hospice nurse. Of course, at this point she is not ready to deal with the VA. But she will get ahold of me when she has had a bit of time to recover from his death and is ready to pursue a claim. I wasn't sure about the types of soft tissue carcinoma. At the VA site it LOOKS like lung cancer (any kind) is presumptive AND certain types of soft tissue carcinomas are ALSO presumptive. So it would lead you to believe that if you had lung cancer, OR a qualifying soft tissue carcinoma at another location, that would be SC. Good information on the TDIU claim, as that should have been inferred by his medical records. And I am assuming that his VA treatment records should be considered constructively in his file at the time of his death. If they service connect cancer - that should grant 100%. I am not sure if they got a VCAA letter or not. I doubt he was collecting Social Security. I think he was one of those vets that by the time they figured out how disabled he was, he had already not had enough RECENT work credits to qualify for SSD. I told her that when she reports his death to the VA - they SHOULD send her a claim form for DIC / Accrued Benefits. Free

Just got home from my the funeral of my cousin's husband. He was a vietnam vet. He died of cancer, which she said started as lung cancer. He broke some ribs around Christmas. They took him to the VA. The VA wouldn't treat him. Hadn't filled out his paperwork or something. So they took him to the local hospital and were told he had cancer. So then the VA did take him and was GOING to treat him - but when they took him back the VA said he did NOT have cancer - that he just had bruised ribs. So no treatment for awhile, but he got worse, and the cancer spread to his brain. He had surgery and chemo - but then it spread to his liver. So my questions are: If his cancer started as lung cancer - isn't this presumptive for a Vietnam Vet? Or does it have to be a certain type of cancer also? And is there a time limit for developing the cancer after Vietnam service? Also - as the hospital told him he had cancer, but then the VA ruled it out and told him he didn't (until it had already spread to his brain) is this a possible Section --is it 1151? Of course, my cousin isn't ready to pursue anything yet. I just made sure she had my cell phone number for when she is ready. She said they did file a claim for the cancer and for PTSD this year. Said she wished she had known about that years ago - has had it all these years. Free

Here is the one from Social Security: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/cfr20/401/401-0120.htm §401.120 Disclosures required by law. We disclose information when a law specifically requires it. The Social Security Act requires us to disclose information for certain program purposes. These include disclosures to the SSA Office of Inspector General, the Federal Parent Locator Service, and to States pursuant to an arrangement regarding use of the Blood Donor Locator Service. Also, there are other laws which require that we furnish other agencies information which they need for their programs. These agencies include the Department of Veterans Affairs for its benefit programs, the Immigration and Naturalization Service to carry out its duties regarding aliens, the Railroad Retirement Board for its benefit programs, and to Federal, State, and local agencies administering Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Medicaid, unemployment compensation, food stamps, and other programs. It is kind of odd - my husband was the disabled person - but I don't see any Social Security records about him in his C-file. However, there is a one page transmittal on ME - checking to see if I had applied for and / or been approved for Social Security benefits. It was just a one page trasmittal sheet. I did not sign any consent - and I did not use the joint application for VA / Social Security that they use for Survivors ( we CAN file a joint application for both benefits) I informed them that I was filing separately, but they still pulled up a sheet on me. If they can pull up info from Social Security to see if you are NOT eligible - they SHOULD be able to pull it up to see if you ARE eligible. I read a case for a child survivor - and the BVA remanded it because the VA had not requested the child's Social Security records to see if the child was disabled. Free

I played around with a bit of the wording a bit... I am not sure if I was on target with some of it though... Also - I don't think the part on Roberson about if you have a mental disability at 70% - you get TDIU is effective any more. I think that has been changed. BUT it could effect TDIU for the pre-1989 portion of your claim. Something to keep in mind though - is that is effective ONLY if the mental condition at 70% is the ONLY disability you have. I saw a case where this did NOT apply to the Vet - though he had a 70% mental condition BECAUSE he also had a 10% leg condition. Go figure - how silly.. Anyway - I do remember one of your doctors had noted your headaches were secondary to your anxiety. So you could also call them headaches - TO INCLUDE as secondary to anxiety. With it worded that way - they should consider the headaches as a secondary condition - AND actually - even if they don't grant for secondary - they should grant for headaches as they started in the service and you have received treatment for them throughout the years. Of course, you know the VA - they might get into a whole game of arguing that the SMR says the headaches were vascular; not tension - so they aren't related to your anxiety - and totally ignore that they started in service and have continued through the years. So you will have to decided if putting an extra dot in there for them to connect would be worth it. Anyway -- some POSSIBLE suggestions for parts of the letter: I do not want this to sound like a NOD at this time. I would like to send a letter with the TDIU Form and a letter from my doctor. Does this sound alright? To the Department of Veterans Affairs: Subject: Claim for TDIU This is not an NOD. However, this is a letter following up on my unadjudicated claims that are still pending before the VA at this time. The claims that remain unadjudicated are my claim for headaches and my claim for TDIU. On my claim for headaches I shall expect same rating, as you may use the same medical information used to decide the February 27, 2004 claim effective June 26, 2003. The NSC Pension, February 27, 2004 effective June 26, 2003 states 50% for chronic anxiety and 10% for headaches. Furthermore, I am sending the VA another copy of the TDIU form completed to the best of my knowledge and belief. I am submitting the TDIU form that was sent to me to further assist in adjudicating my claim for TDIU. I am requesting TDIU with the Effective Date being the date that I first submitted evidence of a medical disability, made a claim for the highest rating possible, and submitted evidence of unemployability to the VA - as under Roberson vs. Principi, once those requirements are met “the “identify the benefit sought” requirement of 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a) is met and the VA must consider TDIU.” As the VA did not send me the TDIU form until ____, though they have had evidence of the above for a substantial number of years, and as I am submitting the TDIU form within ___ from the time it was sent to me, I expect my TDIU claim be awarded to the earliest possible date the VA received the TDIU claim under Roberson, and not from the date the VA sent me the form. Had it not been for the Negligence of the VA to acquire my psychiatric records from the St Louis archives upon my first filing date, my claim would not had been so impossible to establish service connection. I am requesting the VA to accept the Certified letter from Social Security pertaining to my work history. Additionally, I expect the evidence from my service medical records to be considered constructively in my file as of the date of my earliest claim for service connection / TDIU. Please read. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 00-7009 HOWARD F. ROBERSON, Claimant-Appellant, v. ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee. DECIDED: May 29, 2001 In March of 1989, 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 was amended to add subsection ©, stating: “in cases in which the only compensable service-connected disability is a mental disorder assigned a seventy percent evaluation, and such mental disorder precludes a veteran from securing or following a substantially gainful occupation . . . the mental disorder shall be assigned a 100 percent evaluation under the appropriate diagnostic code.” "Once a veteran submits evidence of a medical disability and makes a claim for the highest rating possible, and additionally submits evidence of un-employability, the “identify the benefit sought” requirement of 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a) is met and the VA must consider TDIU. The VA must consider TDIU because, in order to develop a claim “to its optimum” as mandated by Hodge, the VA must determine all potential claims raised by the evidence, applying all relevant laws and regulations, regardless of whether the claim is specifically labeled as a claim for TDIU.

Before You Go - Musical Tribute to Vietnam Vets http://www.managedmusic.com/php/BYGIndex.php?page=playBYGVN

They have a Tribute for Vietnam Vets too! http://www.managedmusic.com/php/BYGIndex.php?page=playBYGVN

I got this email from one of my husband's friend's last night. My husband would have loved it! The elderly parking lot attendant wasn't in a good mood! Neither was Sam Bierstock. It was around 1 a.m., and Bierstock, a Delray Beach, Fla. , eye doctor, business consultant, corporate speaker and musician, was bone tired after appearing at an event. He pulled up in his car, and the parking attendant began to speak. "I took two bullets for this country and look what I'm doing," he said bitterly. At first, Bierstock didn't know what to say to the World War II veteran. But he rolled down his window and told the man, "Really, from the bottom of my heart, I want to thank you." Then the old soldier began to cry. "That really got to me," Bierstock says. Cut to today. Bierstock, 58, and John Melnick, 54, of Pompano Beach - a member of Bierstock's band, Dr. Sam and the Managed Care Band - have written a song inspired by that old soldier in the airport parking lot. The mournful "Before You Go" does more than salute those who fought in WWII. It encourages people to go out of their way to thank the aging warriors before they die. "If we had lost that particular war, our whole way of life would have been shot," says Bierstock, who plays harmonica. "The WW II soldiers are now dying at the rate of about 2,000 every day. I thought we needed to thank them." The song is striking a chord. Within four days of Bierstock placing it on the Web, the song and accompanying photo essay have bounced around nine countries, producing tears and heartfelt thanks from veterans, their sons and daughters and grandchildren. "It made me cry," wrote one veteran's son. Another sent an e-mail saying that only after his father consumed several glasses of wine would he discuss " the unspeakable horrors" he and other soldiers had witnessed in places such as Anzio, Iwo Jima, Bataan and Omaha Beach. "I can never thank them enough," the son wrote. "Thank you for thinking about them." Bierstock and Melnick thought about shipping it off to a professional singer, maybe a Lee Greenwood type, but because time was running out for so many veterans, they decided it was best to release it quickly, for free, on the Web. They've sent the song to Sen. John McCain and others in Washington. Already they have been invited to perform it in Houston for a Veterans Day tribute - this after just a few days on the Web. They hope every veteran in America gets a chance to hear it. GOD BLESS every EVERY veteran... and THANK you to those of you veterans who may receive this ! CLICK THE LINK BELOW TO HEAR THE SONG AND SEE THE PICTURES: http://www.managedmusic.com/Music/PlayBeforeYouGo.php

Yeah. I have read posts where people say you can get a lot of information from your C-file copy - notes the rater wrote, underlines, things that let you know what they were paying attention to. There's none of that in my husband's file. It's like they would get some evidence, lose a few pages, and file the rest away... Free

Yippie! Free

Again, I think you can attach a statement to the form. If you attempted to work MORE in 1983 - and it did you in where you couldn't work at ALL - that would still be an impairment. Or if you attempted to work in a harder job - and that did you in where you couldn't work at ALL - that would be an impairment. So - whatever applies - your statement could include, In 1983 I (did whatever you did to earn more money) - but this ended up (whatever it did to cause you to quit working). From Roberson vs. Principi http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judic...ns/00-7009.html Requiring a veteran to prove that he is 100 percent unemployable is different than requiring the veteran to prove that he cannot maintain substantially gainful employment. The use of the word “substantially” suggests an intent to impart flexibility into a determination of the veterans overall employability, whereas a requirement that the veteran prove 100 percent unemployability leaves no flexibility. While the term “substantially gainful occupation” may not set a clear numerical standard for determining TDIU, it does indicate an amount less than 100 percent. Having concluded that proving inability to maintain “substantially gainful occupation” does not require proving 100 percent unemployability, we remand to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for a determination of Roberson’s eligibility for TDIU in accordance with this opinion. CONCLUSION We conclude that the Court of Appeals for Veterans claims erred in holding that Roberson failed to make a claim for TDIU, and erred in applying an incorrect standard for TDIU.

Yep. That is why I have been telling Betty to not let them get by with only granting her TDIU from the date they recieve her form. He claim SCREAMED unemployable! For gosh sakes the VA SAID she was unemployable in 1983!!! Now they will play the game of how much her SC condition contributed to her unemployability. But they should not get by with saying that there was NO "infered" TDIU claim. I have posted the Roberson Decision a couple of times in Betty's threads. http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judic...ns/00-7009.html "Once a veteran submits evidence of a medical disability and makes a claim for the highest rating possible, and additionally submits evidence of unemployability, the “identify the benefit sought” requirement of 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a) is met and the VA must consider TDIU. The VA must consider TDIU because, in order to develop a claim “to its optimum” as mandated by Hodge, the VA must determine all potential claims raised by the evidence, applying all relevant laws and regulations, regardless of whether the claim is specifically labeled as a claim for TDIU. Thus, we reverse the court’s holding that Roberson failed to make a claim for TDIU before the RO at the time of its 1984 decision." It also says: "Requiring a veteran to prove that he is 100 percent unemployable is different than requiring the veteran to prove that he cannot maintain substantially gainful employment. The use of the word “substantially” suggests an intent to impart flexibility into a determination of the veterans overall employability, whereas a requirement that the veteran prove 100 percent unemployability leaves no flexibility. While the term “substantially gainful occupation” may not set a clear numerical standard for determining TDIU, it does indicate an amount less than 100 percent. Having concluded that proving inability to maintain “substantially gainful occupation” does not require proving 100 percent unemployability, we remand to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for a determination of Roberson’s eligibility for TDIU in accordance with this opinion. CONCLUSION We conclude that the Court of Appeals for Veterans claims erred in holding that Roberson failed to make a claim for TDIU, and erred in applying an incorrect standard for TDIU." Of course, I am sure proactively, it would be best to actually file the form - if you didn't file the form - you can still go back and argue that as your record showed evidence of unemployability, you met the standard for filing a claim for TDIU. And I would still think that if the RO wants to maintain you did not submit a "form" - the time frame for submitting the form should be tolled - as the TDIU claim would still be PENDING - in that they had the "infered" claim, are maintaining you need to file a form - and THEY hadn't provided it to you yet. As in Betty's case - the evidence was in the file of unemployability. If the RO just now sent her a form - she is submitting it within one year of the VA providing it to her - and thus, her award should date back to the earliest date she can establish she was unemployable due to her SC condition after filing her INITIAL claim. Free

I think they would have to give you some slack on some of the questions. They know it has been a long time. And you have chronic anxiety - which can affect your memory. For TDUI NOW - the fact that you haven't worked in so long should be pretty sufficient - along with your 70% disability for anxiety. The rating scale alone - with what it takes to be 70% disabled - should indicate your anxiety is such that it would be hard for you to work. For TDUI going BACK - they might want it to be pretty spelled out. Especially since the last year worked also had the highest earnings. But this is just my own "reasoning" - as I know little about the forms or the decision process. I would think you fill it out the best you can - and then add a narrative statement - maybe even for each job. Anything you remember that might help your claim. I wouldn't just make up figures. Put down what yo know and let them know - that was a LONG time ago. But I think statements such as, I do not recall what the earnings in my higest quarter were - would be okay. I would also think a statement (under remarks or as an attachment "I do not recall specifically how much time I lost due to illness, but I do recall calling off frequently during --whenever it was you did--" or if you left early, got there late - or even cut back your hours, I would note that. (i.e. time lost due to illness - - APPROXIMATELY ___ because I had to cut back to less hours at work.. I think using approximately on ANY of the sections would be okay, due to the time lag. Free