Ricky

After reading story after story about these brave young guys and gals in which they are losing their homes, cars etc........... My opinion is this is really a DoD problem vs a VA problem. Why are they not being kept on active duty until their claims are processed? Maybe they are but that is not the way I understood it. Why in the world would the DoD rip away their full salary (full but not equal to their civilian pay for reserve and guard service members)and kick them to the outside of the gate before their VA benefits had kicked in? If this is not being done then DoD should be blasted instead of VA (only for compensation stuff as DoD is taking its licking for medical care). If DoD was held to their responsibility then there would be no need for internal memos within the VA indicating these guys and gals are to get pushed to the front of the line in the claims process. Just wondering.........it is late and I have nothing else to do except wonder about stuff.

Rick is right. Remember in VA terms work means substaninal and gainful employment. It is possible for it to be determined that you can hold substaninal and gainful employment no matter what you make. tssnav: the explaination for mental disabilities is contained in the disability rating code for mental issues. It is one of those you have to just assume based upon the rating requirements for 100 percent mental disabilities. Take a look at it and you will see that a 100 percent rating means that you can not function in any social or employment environment. Therefore, if you work, then you can function in an employment environement, therefore, you do not meet the requirements for a 100 percent rating for a mental disability. A 70 percent rating for a physical disability does not require that you not be able to function in an employment environment (scan through the disabilities for physical disabilities and you will see what I mean). However, other parts of 38 CFR which cover UI provide that you must not be able to seek and maintain substaninal and or gainful employment in order to meet the requirements of UI. UI is not a disability code for which you are rated. It is a special circumstance situation.

Vike, not trying to argue but why do you always indicate that the system over load is due to bogus claims. Surely you do not believe that. Bogus claims should take no more than 30 days to water out. They are pretty easy to spot. Also the current backlog is somewhere around 600,000. What portion of those would you guess to be bogus? Please do not take this post wrong. I am just trying to see what you base your opinion on. If its a good one maybe I will pick it up also instead of mine which is inaccurate ratings by not applying the applicable laws. :)

I agree with the other that you are on the right track. Hopefully you have filed your claim during a time of change within the VA and it will be handled IAW the law and not as many others on this site who have been waiting years for the rating they deserve. Welcome aboard. Hang around on this site and you can not go wrong. There are many experts here just waiting to assist you such as Berta, Tbird, Vike etc.........

This would be good. However, it could cause budget problems. The fix is to have the VA to simply rate claims in accordance with 38 CFR and stop all this subjective bull crap they currently use. If a veteran provides evidence of in service occurance, medical evidence of a current disability and an IMO providing the effects of the disability on the vet then if the idiots would simply apply 38 CFR using M21R you would see the current 600,000 pending claims drop by at least 75 percent. Initinal claims that contain the above would be completed in about 60 days. Its a simple thing that is needed and it is hard to understand why in the H$$L they have not done it. JMHO

Berta - I think you are 100 percent correct. This is the definition that is accepted by the American Medical Community. However, at the VA you can simply add together the number of raters and DRO's nationwide and that is how many VA definitions you will get. Some raters accept this argument based upon the medical community and others want to see it tied into an animal ballon configuration. Once again just shows the subjective nature of the VA claim world. And they call my recounts of my pain and inability to move freely subjective...... my, my, my.

At age 70 does he have a copy of his SMR's available? I agree also that if the SMR's comment on the hearing loss and the upcoming C&P produces results that VA is looking for in a hearing loss claim you should not have a problem.

Amvets is just blowing smoke. As attorneys do, NSO have their bottom feeders. Sorry but Amvets vets that definition in my opinion. They are simply trying to put fear into people cause they know that if the vets attorney bill passes they will be the first to go as far as membership and donations go. Once again just my opinion.

Hey, how do you add attachments? I wanted to attach the pages from the rating decision and the SOC but can not figure it out!!!

Vike - looks like I posted my reply as you were posting yours so my latest post showed up under yours. I apologize to you for I know the time frames like the back of my hand. I simply whipped out the post without even looking at it before I hit the button. I also apologize to anyone that I confused by such a stupid action. To most the time frames are confusing enough without my adding to it.

Six, Vike is totally correct on the time frames. I just threw the post together to fast. Once you receive a decision you have one year from the date of the decision letter to file a nod. Once you receive a SOC on issues that you have appealed you have only 60 DAYS to perfect the appeal by submitting a completely filled out Form 9. Sorry my non-proof reading dumbass confused you my buddy. Vike - when the doc diagnosed the loss of use in August 05 I sent a letter to the VA with the medical evidence and stated that I now wanted to claim my paralysis of the left upper and lower as loss of use based upon the medical evidence attached to the cover letter. My assumption is that this was effective in establishing a claim for loss of use for one foot and one hand. Up until Aug 05 the medical evidence provided that the effects of my disability was incomplete severe paralysis of the left upper and lower. However, in August 05 I developed a complete loss of preprositional sense in the limbs causing me to lose complete feeling in both. This resulted in my inability to grip and hold items, my hand is now clinched. On the foot, I was unable to walk without watching the action of the foot (so I could tell where it was) along with the inability to tell when the complete weight bearing of the foot struck the ground. I HOPE MY AUGUST 05 LETTER IS GOOD ENOUGH TO ESTABLISH THE EFFECTIVE DATE AS AUG 05 FOR A RATING UNDER 5111 Loss of Use. My disability due to the residuals of the stroke was progressive. The doctor suggested that every time there was a worsening of the disability I go ahead and submit the evidence to the VA so I did. What do you think about the August 05 letter? Will it be good enough to set the loss of use date at Aug 05? This brace thing is the brain child of one of my many docs. The dejerine-roussy syndrome also causes a weaking of the muscles and ti has affected my ankle. Based upon this he ordered a special AFO which goes all the way to my knee level. The heal of the brace has a special piece on it that helps to send viberations up the brace to a level on my leg that I can feel. When I feel the viberation I know my foot has made contact with the ground. This is just a continuation of the situation that occurred in Aug 05 and is not new. It has really helped and will assist me in keeping my employment a while longer cause I do not want to quit at this time. Work helps me focus and keeps my mind off the constant pain. As I can still function to a degree except I now have to put in a 200 percent effort to complete my tasks and stay up with my coworkers, my employer, U.S. Gov is very understanding of my disabilities so I plan on working until they put me in the wooden box for that final sleep.

Yes Sir, you did offer some explanations and I appreciate that. Sorry I took up your time. There is one VA 9 pending, one Nod pending. The Nod is a result of the SOC they issued. I did not want two appeals pending at the same time but my 60 days was running out on the first NOD then the 1 year period was running out on the SOC issue so I had to go ahead and send in the second NOD on the EED and increased rating on my back issue. It is not that I tried to clutter the system but I had to comply with the time lines established by the VA. The only new information is that a recent IRIS inquiry provided that I would get my DRO hearing. They stated that the DRO hearing would allow for the discussion of all issues contained in the Form 9 and the NOD. I guess I am back on track with them if they hold true to their word. I have some new medical evidence to provide. However, I am afraid they are going to try an change the EED on the VA 9 issues. The loss of use occured in Aug 05 while the first NOD was pending so I provided that evidence at that time. Since that time they have braced my left leg in an attemp to allow me to ambulate effectively. The brace provides support for my ankle whis is so weak it just folds over when attempting to walk and also provides shock viberation which travels up my leg to a point that has feeling. This allows for me to tell when the foot strikes the ground therefore allowing me to walk without having to watch my foot. Sure makes a world of difference. However, like I said the medical evidence establishes the loss of use effective Aug 05 and then I have all of this recent new evidence and I am afraid, based upon their past performance, they are going to accept the evidence and say, hey yep you do have loss of use of the foot based upon medical evidence provided at the DRO hearing so your rating is effective 15 April 07 the date of your DRO hearing. My question to you and all my HADIT buddies is should I just hold this new evidence and and continue to fight the claim with the evidence in the file that they have up until this point ignored or should I submit the new evidence to support the claim now. Any comments from all would be appreciated. I promise guys this is the last you will hear about this whacky claim. I know we are all at the point to where we think, jez Ricky yep you got problems as you have shoved them down our throats hahahahahahahahahaha. At this point it looks like things are on track and I willl have the opportunity to sit with a DRO and ask him why the evidence appears to have been ingnored yada yada yada, these same questions I have been bugging you guys with over the past two years. Bottom line without the concern and compassion of you guys I would not even be to this point and I truly appreciate all of you guys input. THANKS.

Ok Vike here you go: Service connection is no problem. In Jan 05 I had a stroke. In Feb/Mar 05 after Hospital, MRI and neurologist verifed that it was a stroke that was causing the paralysis of the left face, hand and foot. All three MEDICALLY DIAGNOISED this paralysis as Dejerine-Roussy Syndrome resulting from the Jan 2005 stroke. The claim was submitted in Mar 05 less than 60 days from the occurance of the stroke. In the claim it was asked that a claim be established for the stroke, secondary to ALREADY SERVICE CONNECTED hypertension and DMII under CFR 38 disability code 8008. As per 8008 it was asked that a 100 percent rating be assigned for six months effective Mar 06. (8008 provides "Rate for six months as 100 percent then rate residuals). Claim was submitted with the MRI results, neurologist's treatment records, PCP treatment records and hospital records. All records provided that in Jan 2005 I suffered a right thalamic CVA. The neuro records and PCP records provided the diagnosis of dejerine-roussy and provided their objective findings of the paralysis caused by the dejerine-roussy syndrome. Neuro and PCP provided IMO's tying the stroke to my service connected hypertension and DMII. All of this was submitted with the claim. Since the dejerine-roussy had already been diagnosised the claim also asked that at the end of the six months the claim for dejerine-roussy be established as residuals of and secondary to the Jan 2005 stroke. It was provided that the dejerine-roussy (along with medical diagnosis and IMO's) affected the left face, arm/hand and leg/foot and the objective findings as to the level of paralysis of each body section. In July 05 a C&P was scheduled. C&P results provided that the stroke did occur, and I had paraslyses in the left face and upper and lower extermities with constant pain. One examiner opined that forward propeltion and push off power of left lower was extermely limited. muscle strength was 1/2 of 5 yada yada yada........... In a July 05 Rating Decision it stated that " you reported that in Jan 05 you suffered a right thalamic CVA. During a VA examination you were objectively found to have ..........A REPEAT OF THE DOCS STUFF FROM THE C&P............. As a result a rating of 10 percent is assigned for CVA with the residuals of Dejerine-Roussy syndrome effective February 2004 (NOW THIS IS A YEAR BEFORE THE STROKE HAPPENED AND THE CLAIM WAS FILED. I guess some would say they were being generous to me). A higher rating of 100 percent is not warranted due to "an absense of a current or recently active disease". THAT IS ALL IT SAID. NO OTHER REASON WHY THE 100 PERCENT FOR THE REQUIRED SIX MONTH PERIOD WAS NOT AWARDED; NO REASON WHY THEY DID NOT AWARD SEPERATE RATINGS FOR THE FACE, ARM/HAND AND LEG/FOOT AS REQUIRED BY CFR 38. NO MENTION WHY THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE (HOSPITAL RECORDS, MRI AND DOCTOR STATEMENTS WERE NOT ACCEPTED NO IF THEY WERE PROBATIVE OR NOT. NOTHING - NADA - JUST A HERE YOU GO BUD TAKE IT AND BE HAPPY. End of Aug 05....... Dejerine-Roussy had increased to a point that I could not use my hand or foot. They were there, however, outside the constant unrelenting pain I could not tell where my hand and foot were, falling and limited to daytime movement because I had to watch my foot as it moved. Neuro provided an IMO style report in that he readdressed the original cause of the disease and his new objective findings and diagnosis of functional loss of use of foot and hand. In an Aug 05 NOD I addressed the issues with the rating decision - I pointed out that 8008 simply stated Rate at six months - 100 percent. It did not provided any required time line for the stroke, although I could understand if the stroke occured over a year ago could be a limiting factor in assigning the 100 percent rating, my claim had been submitted within 60 days of the occurance of the stroke. I also argued the point that the rating decision of an absense of a current or recently active disease was crazy since the hospital report, mri's, neurologist report, treating physician and VA examiners had provided in their medical evidence statements and opinions provided that the stroked occured in Jan 05 nor would it have been possible for the stroke to still be occuring in July 05 during the C&P as accepted medical lit and doctrine provided that a stroke was sudden and lasting only from a few minuets to a max of 48 hours. As a matter of fact the radiologist and neuro doc provided that no evidence of prior or older infarcts was present (this was important to my future treatment.( I provided a bunch of other arguments such as what happened to my evidence and why was it not used to establish the award of the claim; why did they not provide seperate ratings for the face, hand and foot as required per 38 CFR etc.......Berta reviewed it. Based upon the increase of paraylsis and new medical evidence being submitted with the NOD I also asked that they now consider the claim for residuals under (oops forgot the correct code) which provides that loss of use of one foot and on hand be rated as 100 percent along with a rating for the face. Sent it all off with new doc reports and IMO's. In Jan 06 (4 months after submission of NOD) I got SOC which provided no further detail than that of the rating (it was a true cut and paste job). Still no reason why the medical evidence failed to establish the award nor why the absense of any contary evidence held by the VA was provided/referenced by the SOC if that is what they used to deny the claim. STILL NOTHING - NADA Now don't take this wrong Vike - I do not believe you can explain their actions. Plenty of medical evidence exist to merrit this claim (hell they did service connect it even established an effective date 1 year prior to the submission of the claim). All evidence provides a diagnosis of Jan 2005 CVA, Dejerine-Roussy syndrome affecting left side (face, hand, foot) and the objective findings of the docs along with their fully rationalized IMO's. As of todate the VA has not refuted any of the evidence - they simply have provided a rating without providing any reasons or basis for their actions. I understand your comments about medical evidence (I have being doing this for a while). I did not submit a claim (or I should say my wife cause she did the original claim for me)without merit or a claim that could be called frivious in any way. SO HERE WE SIT STILL WAITING OUT THE RO TO SEE WHAT THEIR NEXT STEP WILL BE. So far they have refused me a DRO hearing at the RO cause at first they lost the request and would not accept the green mailer where they signed for it. Then they stated they have a heavy work load so they do not conduct any such hearings (hmmmm did not know heavy work loads over ruled US Code and US Regulations-guess you learn something new every day); they have failed to take action on two other claims that have now been pending for over 30 months (in response to my last inquiry they told me that 30 months was still well within the timeframe alloted for initial claims). Neither of the claims are out of developement cause they say the appeal must be resolved first (this is kind of backwards from most RO's) and on, and on, and on rolls the wheel. I just want the opportunity to sit face to face with the idiots. Nope I am not mad. The only way I can deal with the pain on a daily basis (narcotic drugs has no effect on dejerine roussy so they have not and will not be prescribed) is to read and re-read the rating decision and SOC and laugh. Now I do not expect you to attempt to provide an explanation for my situation nor understand it. I realize that you and others like you are usually dealing with RO's that are slow but somewhat competent. However, I did want all to realize that such things do occur and just because a vets presents such a story does not mean he has sat around on his butt wishing for a hand out. Although I have a legal and law enforcement background does not mean my claim is any more well grounded than any other veterans but I can assure you that my claim, evidence and all other factors were in order before this event unrolled itself. I told a summary of this story on the other vet site a while ago..... jez did I ever take a licking. You would have thought I kid napped their god, good ole SEC Nic and held him for ransom. Now just like the old folk tales we used to hear as children, you can believe me or not. If you do thanks for your support; If you don't God bless you and I really did not need your support any way cause believe it or not I do kinda know what I am doing I just have to get around an incompetent RO (this was not to you personally Vike it was just a general statement.) I spoke with the VAIG about this. I was told we don't investigate these items. This is a non-adverserial system inwhich you have specific rights...... before he could get any further, I fell to the floor and went into a non-stoppable laugh...... thought I was going to pee-pee in my pants. The better half had to nearly carry me out of the office cause I could not stop laughing. Makes me think about the current situation in which the Prez has put ole Sec Nic in charge of the commission to review VA health care hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha..... what the hell was he thinking? The wolf in charge of the hen house - what a novel concept. Hopes this meets the mark and clears up the fact that I have not submitted claim lacking merit without any medical documentation.

Jangrin - That part of CFR 38 you are quoting pertains to medical examinations that the VA orders and not IMO's. Alex - I understand the requirements of the VA as issued by the court, however, what if they simply say denied cause of no evidence of a current or active disease? The only evidence of record was a C&P which supported the claim (said disability existed during exam) and two IMO's which supported the claim (same as C&P). Three medical opinions that supported the claim and no medical evidence in the file to counter the good evidence or support the raters decision however, the rater denied the claim without addressing any of the opinions. Can they do that? would they at least have to address some of the medical evidence? I do not think the court intended for such a situation as this to happen for this left the vet having to guess the reasons for denial when his Form 9 was prepared. No way to attack the SOC other than his original arguments of VA doc along with board certified doc said disease existed on XXXX date.

Hang in there Larry. It is a good statement. He did say that it was at least as likely as not. However, he also stated "there is no way to absolutely determine which one has led to more of this significant degeneration ". You are just going to have to get the rater past this portion of the statement. Since he did say it was at least as likely as not it would have been better if he had provided a basis for his opinion - such as : " Although there is no way to absolutely determine which one has led to more of this significant degeneration, in my opinion it is at least as likely the 1964 injury is the cause. My opinion is based upon yada yada yada yada............... although I feel that his statement should stand simply based upon his experience as a specialist the VA sometimes, as we all know, gets wrapped around the axle over one simple entry in a statement without fully understanding the over all statement. Thats where we come in with guns a flaming and explain to the dummies that the use of one entry in the statement only serves to allow that entry to be taken out of context. However, if the over all statement is read and understood they will soon see the light. Don't get so upset. If they do this to you with this statement, which is good medical evidence, then you will need to do the same with the "at least as likely as not" entry. Just keep shoving that down their throats and reminding them that are the ones who ask for such an entery. If they come back at you and scream no basis for his statement, I am sure he will clarify it for them. Most civilain specialists do not like for a non-medical doctor GS9 to tell them their statement is bad or question part of it. Now get out of bed buddy and lets fight them. If it makes you feel better, I just submitted a statement from a 35 year board certified neruologist that said "is directly due to" because of ................. My opinion is based upon my experience in treating thousands of patients with neurological conditions such as this, it is current accepted medical doctrine, I along with my peers have produced medical doctrine based upon this opinion which is accepted and used in acute stroke treatment centers both nationwide and world wide....... VA rater who misspelled every other sixth word in the rating decision said - denied, non-probative due to opinion being to far outside that of medical community HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA. So you see, no matter what type of statement you have it is a coin toss at the VARO. Most of the time the BVA are the ones who understand medical statements and award claims based upon what the real doc said.

Not taking up for the Army, cause I fought them dummies for over 25 years on like issues, however, what about out Sec Nic? Part of the problem was unresolved issues on disability comp. This was Army disability comp and VA comp. Why is ole Sec Nic NOT biting the bullet also? After all he is responsible for the loss of hundreds of thousands of vets personal info over and over again. Now we have these problems -------- It is so damn funny to see the media, the services, the VA etc...... jump up and and scream "holy cow" look at this stuff ---like it just happened- hell its been going on for the past 50 years!!!! I just wish the media would keep hanging on to stuff like this for about the next two years. Maybe then ole Sec Nic would bite the bullet and maybe, just maybe some positive changes would come about within the VA. I know guys, I must be dreaming----------shhhhhhhhh don't wake me cause it is such a wonderful dream. One where veterans are receiving top notch medical care within a timely manner- one in which disabled veterans claims are completed within 6 months-one where disability claim stats on the morning reports read something like: Nation wide- pending: 121,000. processed 330,00: percentage approved 96 percent: percentage denied- 4 percent: percentage appealed: 1 percent. SEE IT IS A HELL OF A DREAM.

Is there a way to find out how much your disability payments will be if you apply for and are awarded SSDI?

Thanks Carlie - I had already been to that site and could not figure it out. What I am trying to do is send in my request for clothing allowance and I do not see any address for such an action. I am afraid that if I send it to the general address it will get lost. I guess I will call them in Birmingham and see if they can help. Man, it is a shame to be stupid hahahahahaha.

Is there a listing out there anywhere that lists the VAMC and the phone numbers and address' to them/their different departments?

Wow - "more claims approved than denied" - I would like to see these stats. Guess I been looking in the wrong places. Don't hold your breath too long - guys from the other sites have zero 0 tolerance for negative posting towards the VA. The VA does do some good things and I am glad it is there for the veterans, however, there are many of these mistaked you speak of. If you read some of the decision letters and SOC's issued to other vets you will see that only an idiot could write such a piece of crap. Since it is not nice to call those you do not know names the only guess left is that what they have done was done intentionally. What are you suppose to think when you do look at the true stats for the RO's and you see a remand rate of 30. 40. or even 50 percent? Is that the occasional human nature mistake? I would suggest that it is an indication of an RO full of untrained employees who have been tasked to rate claims as fast as they can scan them by a management staff who could care less about insuring their employees are trained, following policy, law etc....... A management staff that is politically motivated and only concerned with themselves. I think if one would do the research they would find that the approval rate for the claims process is somewhere around 38 percent (don't hold me to that - it is something I read a while back and cant't recall the exact numbers). Now for giving VA credit - I have seen a lot of credit giving here on Hadit. The veterans who use Hadit always comment on the good things the VA has done for them so to say that the majority of posts are negative is kinda not correct. Even when a vet posts something that is not quite pro-VA everybody learns something. I hope Hadit does not get into this slamming veterans, as done on other sites, just because they post an anti-VA post. Yep the people who work at the VA for the most part are good, honest, and really try to do all they can for the veteran but the system stops them when there is a money hungary, power seeking selfish bast--- in charge. This is just my opinion.

Yes there is a reason and bases in which the VA is required to provide information on the evidence they considered PROBATIVE AND RELEVANT and how they used it in conjunction with the claim. The key here being they considered PROBATIVE AND RELEVANT to the claim. They should discuss any medical information they did not consider Probative and why they did not consider it Probative. From reviewing prior cases it seems the court has given them an out by saying the VA does not have to rehash all evidence contained in the file only that they considered probative and relevant to the decision at hand. Believe me they use this out to the max as that was one of my arguments to which they told me - we did not consider the evidence relevant to the claim, therefore, no discussion was required (SOC entry). The only way to keep these buggers honest is to have a change in the law. I have hounded my congress dummy for the past year to entertain the idea of having VA employees held responsible for their actions. I am in law enforcement and assure you that if I violate the U.S Code or internal regulations I am going to get to know the inside of a jail cell pretty quick. Even if we were only able to hold them to something as small as paying interest on retro payments if it could be proven that a violation had happened in the denial of a claim you would see a lot of the RO's crazy antics and stupid denials come to a quick halt. Although we should be able to hold them responsible both in the criminal and civil systems a small step such as interest payments would clear out the back log fast. Now you will find some RO's that will not use a liberal interpertation of the court's ruling to deny a claim, but some such as the one that services me will do so at the drop of a pen.

I don't think 2 Vs 2 equals anything. It all depends on what the "layperson" who is rating your claim determines on which two are probative and the weight applied by him to your good medical reports. Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmmm. Lets see here. You as the defender of your claim are considered by the VA as a "layperson" who can not determine any medical aspects or facts surrounding your claim, however, the VA's defender, who is nothing more than a layperson can disqualify an entire medical statement written by a board certified specialist with 30 years experience. Hmmmmm. None adverserial? unrealistic is more like it. I have seen retired and active VA employees on other sites tout "why when I was a DRO we wer god. We saw millions of claims which qualified us to make such determinations". Sorry buddy but no medical training only equals no medical training. Maybe I can use this argument in my appeal. Why, my lord I read millions of BVA and CVA appeals. I guess this makes me "SUPER LAYPERSON" capable of issuing medical diagnosis in an instant. Just being froggy tonight!!!!!!

Just was issued two braces for my left leg. Once custom made inside the shoe type and one that attaches to the shoe with metal rods. These will support my ankle and carry the viberations from when my foot strikes the ground to my leg just below my knee which will allow me to tell when my foot hits the ground which will allow me to walk more securely without having to watch my stupid foot while walking. Will I qualify for the clothing allowance? If I do will it be paid upon approval or do you have to wait until the next yearly payments are made by the VA. I think I remember you guys stating that it is paid in August if I recall correctly. This is not a political post, nor indication of a false claim. Just wanted to ward off any flame type posts. :) haha

Vike - what you said makes me understand why mine is still pending (since 2004) I have two appeals and two seperate issues in the fire so I guess it will be a while before they complete the dependent claim. Oh well I got nuthing but time on my hands. Thanks for the info

All of my stuff was sent in with my original claim. Now I know it does not mean anything until you hit 30 percent. However, you would think it would be kept and made part of the record but no...... I had to resend all information in again. My has been pending since Feb 2004. Iris inquiries provide "claim for dependcy has been received. We are currently working the issuse. I have been married for 35 years to same gal so I don't know what in the hell they could be doing.