Ricky

Just finished my outline for one disability. I am going to try and upload it here for any that wishes to take a look at it. If you get to it by this Saturday before the better half loads me up for the trip to the VARO and the Monday morning hearing all comments will be appreciated. If not then maybe it can be turned into a document that all Hadit vets can use as an example for a DRO hearing. I hope it meets the mark. I hope the opening statement will set the tone for a non-combative hearing, however, I am willing to go either way. 4Stroke_Argument1.doc 1General_Opening_Statement.doc

I guess this is kinda of stupid but is the definition for loss of use for rating evaluations the same as the one used for loss of use, for SMC purposes. Just wondering since the regulation states specifically "loss of use of a hand or foot, for special monthly compenstion purposes". If there are not two definitions, one for smc and one for disability evaluations why the heck does it not simply state "loss of use of a hand or foot exists when.................. Guess I will never understand this VA stuff.

Thanks allan. See the difference. No where does the new wording provide specific details when it comes to the denial of a claim. Guess its just another way to get around the law. I like the wording in the original one better as it would have helped me to argue a point during my upcoming DRO hearing.

Thanks Berta - I read with interest the BVA decision in this claim. Just a couple of comments: -The evidence shows right foot drop for several years, and he has difficulties in walking The way I understand the regulation it specifically states that foot drop will be take as loss of use of foot. So I do not know where this decision came from. -Loss of use of a foot will be held to exist when no effective function remains other than that which would be equally well served by an amputation stump at the site of the election below knee with use of a suitable prosthesis. I still have a hard time understanding this. My read on it is that the leg, foot etc... functions as though you were using an artifical limb, brace etc....However, seems as though the overall reading of this decision is that no matter what you use, if it makes the limb function then you do not have loss of use. Anyway, I will present my case at the hearing and see where we go from there. My nerves in the limbs function very well - too well. If you stick me with a pin you will cause me to jump over the moon. My damage is in the thalamus where all the nerves meet. It is misreading signals from the nerves. an example is that the nerves in the hand feel the touch of cotton and relays that to the brain. When it reaches the brain, the thalamus reads it as if something was tearing the flesh from my hand instead of the feel of the cotton. You would have to do a search on Dejerine-Roussy Syndrome which would lead you to pain online.org or another related site to understand the effects. The loss of use claim if for extereme pain on movement plus this syndrom causes a complete loss of propositional sense. In other words when my foot touches the floor once again the thalamus is in capable reading the signal. Although it reads the feel of the cold floor as pain it can not tell when the correct weight bearing of the foot has been reached. The results of this without my watching my foot hit the ground or my new brace which transfers the vibs to the upper calf muscle is I do not know where my foot is. The brace functions the same as an artifical leg. With the articicial leg ones stump area allows the person to realize that his foot has hit the ground. My brace works the same. Further comments will be appreciated and are MUCH NEEDED BY ME. Thanks guys. I am on my wits end with this damn hearing. It is comming up fast Apr 16th. Forgot to add - after reading this decision I thought to myself - wow, my problems are small compared to the ones claimed by this guy so if that is any indication then jez I guess I just need to forget it.

Allan - was this recinded by M21R? I could not get a full print so I went to the M21 and it said it was recinded. I looked at M21R and boy is it worded different. the rewrite is not so specific as to how the reasons and basis is supposed to look and what it is to contain. No wonder we get such outlandish information in the reasons and bases section. If you don't mind let me know what you think about this as I was going to quote it in my arguments next monday at may DRO hearing but if it has truly been recinded then I may be out of luck. Thanks

Windy, I was just try to add a little humor. But on a more serious note her reply simply has the letter "m". Nothing else. When you try to review can you see this or is it that you can not see her post at all? You may want to ask the geeks for assistance if the latter is the problem.

her response is right there - it is "m" hahahahahahahahaha

I agree with rick in that the only way for this to happen is for the VA to combine all of the ratings into a SINGLE rating of 60 percent. I guess one could argue the point if the VA used a hyphenated code but I still do not believe one would be successful in a claim for tdiu. The only hope here is to get one raised to 40 percent which could possible put the veteran at 70 at which point he would meet the requirements.

Retired = one pair of standard military glasses per year. 10 percent VA disability = one pair eye glasses per year. You must have at least 10 percent. Rick made a good point. Some military medical facilities may argue the point but the rule is they must give you one pair per year. If they refuse see either the patient advocate or the hospital commander. Both of these positions offer easy access to discuss problems.

BM - I am just a little confused. You started your post and said you had been SC'ed for your heart for over 40 years and then you said the VA just denied SC for your heart condition. Could you pleas clarify? I am sure someone on here can help you with this. Also what were the reasons for the denial if you don't mind posting them.

Bound, the neuro has diagnosed loss of functional use of left hand and left foot in August 2005. They originally thought nothing could be done but in Jan of this year they made me a special full contact AFO. It is special in that it is higher and causes viberations to be felt just below my knee when my foot hits the ground. They waited on the brace cause they wanted to see the level and if the pain stablized. It did and remains at 8-9. The brace shot it up to about a 15 until the foot became used to it. Without the brace I had to stumble around while keeping my eyes focused on my foot, if not then I would fall. The brace has made a difference in my life for it lets me walk halfway normal without staring at my foot. However, since I had been doing this since Aug 05 it is a hard habit to break hahahahaha. The fingers of the hand stay bent into a fist. If I try to straighten them out the pain shots to about a 30. I can not grip nor hold things with it. Can't button my pants, shirt or tie my shoes etc...... So hopefully things will work out at this DRO hearing. The only thing I can see them trying to do is set the loss of use for the foot based upon the date they made the brace. Medical diagnosis puts the date at Aug 05 though so maybe not but you never know. This stuff developed in Apr 05 but from Apr 05 to Aug 05 it was determined to be severe incomplete paralysis then it leveled off when the loss of propositional sense set in. Thanks for your input.

WOW - slow down just a bit, take a deep breath and relax. Just a few questions to try and clarify what you are talking about. You said you had filed a NOD for EED. When did you do this? Based upon your report of what the top paper on the stack said it appears that this is a standard reply from the VA when you file a NOD which asks if you want a DRO process or the traditional appeal process and if you don't reply within 60 days then they will use the traditional appeal process. If this is it and you don't reply all it means is that the appeals team will review it to make sure it is correct and send you a statement of the case. However, like Rick said it is hard to understand what you are talking about. Yes you can withdraw the appeal if you want to but why would you do that. In a very simlar post you stated you were afraid you would lose the 100 percent U/I award. The only way that would happen would be if you commited fraud to obtain it or your husband was now working. In any case you would know if this was the case. The VA is not just going to pull the rating without providing you proper notice and allowing you the time to reply to the notice. All of the above is just guessing on my part based upon what I think are your questions so don't rely on the info I have provided. You will need to explain yourself a little bit better. Better yet why not go to your local VSO office, even if you do not have one representing you at this time, and have them look it over and explain it to you. If you feel uncomfortable doing that then we will try to help you all we can but your gotta provide a better explanation.

Congrats my good friend! However, my question is what are you going to do now - no more fighting, no more stress, no more.......... I tell you what - let me give your my claim, I will go hide in a cave and you call me when you get it approved hahahahahahaha

Still preparing for the hearing - only a little more that a week to go. If you have read any of my previous post you know that I had a CVA. As a result of the CVA I suffer from Dejerine-Roussy Syndrom which affects the left side of my face and has caused the loss of functional use of my left hand and foot. Where in 38 CFR 38, outside of the combined ratings table area, does it talk about disabilities to each body part resulting from such things as DM and CVA must receive a rating. I have searched both 38 CFR and the VBM until my eyes are bugged. Any help would be appreciated. Also in reference to back injury ratings - does anyone know the date rating code 5292 went out the window and they started using rating code 5237? Thanks

good point john - I forgot to mention that. I am glad someone is always looking out for the benefit of all veterans. :D

The disabled veterans tax is a term use to discribe a law that was established many many years ago. This law forbid military member to draw their earned retirement check and a VA disability check at the same time. What this meant was if you are a retired military member then you must forefit dollar for dollar of your retirement pay if you are receiving VA disability pay. Example: Retired member gets retirement pay of 1800.00 per month retirement pay. Same member is rated by VA as disabled and receives 800.00 per month. Upon receipt of first VA disability check his retirement check would automatically be reduced by the finance center by 800.00. Bottom line is he would still receive 1800.00 per month it would just come from two seperate places.. THIS WAS UNFAIR TO A RETIRED MILITARY MEMBERS. In 2003 the law was repealed. It is now a complicate issue but a military retiree can draw both. Lookup CRDP and read about it.

Philip is correct. using the combined rating math. Since the ibs went from 10 to 30 you must refigure as you can not start with the 60 percent (55 using VA math) level. The 10 percent will go away leaving you with a 50 percent rating. This leaves you 50 percent healthy. Now you have to take the new 30 percent rating and multiply that times the 50 percent healthy figure which gives you 15 percent of disability. Now combine the two disability ratings 50+15 and that gives you a 65 percent disability rating which is rounded up to 70. This leaves you 35 percent healthy so remember if you get any other ratings in the future you must start you math with the 65 percent disability and the 35 percent healthy level. An example would be if you get a 10 percent rating for something then you would take the 35 percent number and multiply that times the 10 percent rating. That would give you 3.5 percent which would be added to the 65 percent making you now 68.5 percent disabled with would be rounded up to 70 percent and would not change your overall rating percentage. It is must better to use the combined rating chart contained in 38 CFR part 4.

Most of the 1-800 guys and gals really try. They attempt to give good advise but just think what they put up with. If you see some of the write ups on the decision letters then you can guess what the notes in the computer look like. This sound good and I hope you get your GOOD decision soon. Note: remember, the 1-800 guys were established to advise vets on what benefits are there for them and how to apply for them. They were not established to track claims. This is just an additional duty they have assumed over time. Some complain about the bad poop given. This is because you have gotten a hold of a newbie who was trained on veterans benefit and not how to navigate through the computer screens. When this happens try to help them by being nice and telling them exactly what you want them to look at just as has been done in this case.

T/P is a status assigned to a rating by the VA after they have determined that the disability is static and no future possibility exists for improvement in the disability. It is not a requirement for any VA rating.

Bob this thread started off with a comment about the VA wanting to reduce a waiting period from 60 to 30 days in order to decrease the time required to process a vets appeal. The original post was followed by a multitude of comments from vets as to whey they felt such an action would not work; then by some comments on examaples of the processing of claims by RO's. Where is the inappropriatness? Were 90 percent of the comments negative - yes. Why - the negative comments were based upon personal experiences by the vets that posted them. Sorry but as I told Vike in my post you also have to see both sides of the picture. If a vet receives bad service from and RO - a whacky decision ect..... or their claim is still tied up at the RO after 24-36 months, even if they post a negative comment about the Va, their posts are appropriate and helpful to all vets including the posting vet. Maybe his post will result in someone being able to help him/her in fixing their claim. If the vet does post what he/she thinks to be some illegal practice or screw tatic by the RO maybe other vets who have faced the same situation and since resolve the issue just might be able to help him or her resolve the issue. However, if he/she does not post their true feelings then the chances of help decrease greatly. And yes each and all of these type post are appropriate for the claims forum. If we stick to strictly accepting comments from veterans who only support a party line of the VA is great and it is your fault that your claim did not succeed then we are doing a diservice to all veterans. There are good things about the VA and there are Bad things. I fully understand that with a 170 percent scheduler rating how it would be easy for one to be all pro VA. However, a veteran with a 30 percent rating who can't work, has lost his house and family due to his disability will have a very different picture. Are such feelings justified - Not in all cases. Maybe the vet has overlooked something or maybe his/claim really does not merrit a rating. Jumping them and trying to beat the fact into their head that they should love the VA is not what this site is about. It is about assistance no matter what the vet posts about the VA. We are not all experts but we do all have our opinions about va claims processing and the quickest way to get our earnd benefits. I do not recall any veteran or widow being asked to sign a POA with any Hadit veteran or pay for any advice given. If a veteran is way off with their personal advice or opinions simply provide what you may think is the correct advice and let the posting veteran make the decision. Banning should only be taken on if a veteran is proven to be malious in that he is intentionally cause harm to the site - spamming etc........ Bottom line is I have not read any comments on this post that do not belong as they all pertain to errors commited by the RO in the processing of claims which tend to example the long processing of claims based upon VA error. Based upon this it would not matter if the VA only allowed a 2 day time period to submit additional evidence for no action taken by them would decrease the processing time of a claim until they start to clean from under the rug at the front door of the RO's. Now guys like you, Vike, Berta, Tbird and others are the stablizing force here on Hadit for you seem to understand the aggravation felt by most veterans and you always provide level headed advise to all veterans. If Vike left then so be it but I do not understand his actions. Although I do not know him personally he appears to be a great person and has provided me and many others with excellent advice so his return would be greatly appreciated and desired. HOWEVER, just keep in mind the VA is not fair to all and some veterans have been totally screwed by them. PLEASE DO NOT attempt to turn this wonderful site into a sister site of those out there that beat veterans to a pulp if they display a anti VA attitude. If you feel their attitued is unwarranted then attempt to change it in a peacful and caring way. THIS IS MY LAST POST ON THIS THREAD. Any way I love all of my Hadit brothers and sisters. Ricky

Just to show you that this was not a one shot deal for this VARO: Feb 04 had reopened claim for lower back injury that was already SC at 0 percent. Injury was lower back with spinal spurs. Did not know the code they rated it under at the time cause it was not provided. May 05 C&P for increase provided that forward flexion of thoracolumbar spine was limited to 45 degrees. July 05 rating decision provided that 0 percent was continued. "18 May 05 examination provided that forward flexion was limited to 45 degrees etc...... In order to received an increase in rating there must be some limitation of motion. Pain within itself is not a disability." Man I do not know what to think about this one they plainly confirmed the limitation of motion. Aug 05 Nod Submitted - Jan 06 SOC issued. 0 percent is continued. reasons same as above. This was a paste and cut action. Had to be cause it was word for word with the rating decision. A few days later received new revised rating. It provided that: "Va examination shows limitation of motion that meets the criteria for a 10 percent evaluation under 5237. This is not CUE and is merely a difference of opinion. An evaluation of 10 percent is not warranted (seems as it was as they just previously stated that 10 percent was awarded) unless there is forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 60 degrees and less than 85 degrees. Hell I know this 60-85 gets 10 percent mine was 45." It went on to say "An evaluation of 20 percent is assigned whenever the forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine is greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 60 degrees." No crap batman. Then why did you not assign a 20 percent rating since my forward flexion was found by a VA examiner to be 45 degrees. I always thought that 45 was some where between 30 and 60. Maybe I went to the wrong school. Then to top it off they assigned the blasted effective date as 31 Jan 06 which was the date of the stupid rating decision. Forget about the law, regulations and the court which says in the effective of a claim to reopen is the date of the claim to reopen. Now the way I see it and surely the way the court will see it is that the date to reopen is Feb 04. I have the notice of reopening dated in Feb 04, no dates for nods were missed so where did they get this Jan 06 date from? This is just another example of this VARO being stupid. They some how, God only knows how, misapplied the criteria for the rating then grabed some date from outer space or somewhere. They provided right there in their decisions the limitation of forward flexion was 45 degrees then quoted the regulation to me which clearly provided that this claim meets the criteria for an evlauation of 20 percent. What is a vet to think about such actions? incompetence? intentional attempts to deny and delay? Jez I don't have any ideal. I hope during my upcoming DRO hearing he/she can explain. I have no new evidence. What new evidence could one get? The evidence is right there in front of them. Its not an issue of me trying to get a higher rating than authorized by the regulation based on pain loss of work or something like that. Jez it is clear cut in that the effective is Feb 04 and the disability meets the critera for a 20 percent rating. Once again there are problems within the VA. Are they across the board? I do not think so, so I want make such broad statements. So I do not feel that broad statements as the VA is great and the problem is vets just want to argue and see things their way. I happen to be lucky and have one of those RO that make stupid decisions which are later confirmed by the most senior rating officials within the RO. You be the judge-what do you think the problem is? There is definitely a problem as I have reviewed many other rating decisions issued to various vets from this RO. Man if you think mine is bad you have not seen the wild ones yet. If the issue is really complicated with several expert medical opinions it drives them crazy and the proof is in their decisions. They began to make a multitude of grammar and spelling errors which really throws a loop in the wild decisions. I just lay the blasted things down and shake my head cause there is no way a vet can make heads or tells out of it to argue against it in a NOD or perfected appeal. This is an example of a vet (me) understanding that all of the VA is not bad but boy some of the RO's are way out there in left field by themselves. The Biggest problem is there is not true oversight. The Va is allowed to interpet the laws and develop regualtions to implement such laws with out any oversight. This "above the law" attitude filters down to the RO's. If you have a bad RO director and service center manager man o man you have problems. They will thumb their nose at you all day long. Now hopefully the BVA will find and correct such problems. However, the problem is - the RO is not taken to task for their errors so they simply continue day in and day out with no fear of any type of corrective action being force upon them. Am I crazy and just see this wrong? You guys tell me. I can scan and post any of my records to prove my statements above.

Six glad to see you made it back. Do a search on Dejerine-Roussy or central stroke syndrome. This will explain it better that I can. Testing done is with a thing called von frey hairs. In this the nerves are still fully functional, they feel everything however, it is as if they are wired backwards. As this has been explained to me the damage is actually in the Thalamus of the brain. The thalamus is the centeral control point for the centeral nervous system. This makes the nerves react to an EMG in a normal manner cause there is really no damage to them between the electrical points of the emg. He explained all of this in the diagnosis and his IMO. Please keep in mind that it is not PN cause the damage to the nerve is actually within the thalamus inside of the brain. Althoug there is a loss of propositional sense if you cut me with a knife I assure you I will feel it - its called delayed pain with overshoot. This is a strange animal and surely makes you question whether it is worth going on or not. It has turned me into a monster to live with. Once again thanks and maybe I will be successful on the 16th.

VCAA - mine said that in order to succeed I must submit evidence which centered around the reason for denial of my claim. Your claim was denied due to the fact that you failed to show for a VA examination in Feb 2002. Therefore, any additional evidence submitted must be centered around this fact in order for it to be considered new and material." Sooooooo I sent them a copy of the Feb 2002 C&P examination. They then issued the SOC saying that the information submitted was already in the claims folder therefore it was not new and material. Holy cow batman what the hell was I supposed to do. The denial was unjustified in the begining since it was denied for failure to show for an examination. I was at Birmingham VAMC for over 8 hours. The doctors submitted the exam results, which favored my claim, and it was at the VARO (evidenced by the SOC). Although the SOC did not provide any discussion on the evidence, either against or for, my claim it did list in the evidence section a IMO from Dr. Ricky H. So just to let you guys know, if you are in need of an IMO just email me. I guess I am a Doctor in know all so I should be able to comment on all disabilities. Now this post included a little humor, however, it is serious stuff. The actions of my VARO can not be read any other way than they simply did not review the claim or they simply wanted me to know they could thumb their nose at me and all I could do was start the long road to appeals land. I am still waiting on the BVA. Now not to say the BVA will not correct this problem but I betcha any back pay that I get the first action will be to remand back to the RO due to an inadequate SOC. Now the first SOC took only 5 months from the submission of the NOD. It normally takes my VARO 12-18 months for action on a NOD so my was faster than a speeding bullet (I wonder why). Wanta bet on how long the SSOC will take? I betcha 12-18 months. Now the point here is that like I said in my post below, yep the VA was designed to be a good system. However, you have to factor in the people factor. Different Sec's over the years have instructed the VARO's to do things the way they want them. We have today become second string players and if the political climate dictates actions which may save money for use in other areas then that is what will be done. As the movie we have the good, the bad and the ugly. Some VARO's definitely fall into the ugly area.

Jim, I have never been before a SSDI board. However, I would assume it to be the same as any other hearing with an attorney. You have started off on the right foot by having someone represent you. He or she will fight the battle for you. You will probably get asked a few questions by the Admin Law Judge - Just be frank, look him in the eye and remember, you paid into this system so you are not asking for a hand out - these are your own paid for benefits. Good luck and stay calm for I am sure all will work out for you. Ricky

Congrats - thank him for me also and tell him they have done a wonderful job. Hey Terry does that manual cover male and female models? I have three gran gals hanging onto me daily and could really use some type of user manual. ahahahahahahaha - grandchildren are great aren't they. I love them to death.