KDM

The BVA sent my appeal from 2004 back to the AMC for further developement on 7 30 2013, on today Ocotber 25 2013 the AMC sent my case back to the BVA no SSOC was sent yet or a decision letter does this mean I have been denied by the AMC/RO because the sent my appeal back to the BVA iwas told that most likely the denied my claim although the BVA has the final say so. Is it possible that the AMC has not granted me the claim because of this , or could the AMC have not granted me the maximum ammount whatever that may be and is it be possibel that they are sending me a partial decsion help please? In you opinons is this usually a flat out denial after a remand is sent back to the BVA?

The Remand stated they have to look at the evidence from a 2007 Aug CNPs i had and I I have had several CNPs due to my appeal dating back to 2004, I had a CNP for this same appeal status post hernia operation and it was due to a mental health issue secondary to my service connected physical diasabilty, t his CNP was in 2007 Aug 31 the doctor stated that my it was at least as likeyl as not that my mental health issues stemmed from my physical condition fifty fifty probability etc....the VA never used this evidence or sent me SSOC. The remand said they had to use this evidence from the 2007 CNPs there where several CNPs, this the mental health issue being one of them, I am being told by my POA that they cant grant me the 2007 CNP issues becuase they never stated it in the remand about my mental health issues being secondary I feel different but I am conused they made a decision on Sept 9 2013 I spoke to the AMC phone number 202 530 9455 after the furlough that was started on Oct 8 2013 and was told they will send me notification in about a week as of Oct 18, I hope I am makeing sense here now should this CNp that the Remand stated they have to look at in 2007 qand send me SSOC on the 2007 Appeals that they never sent me seems as if they have to look at this. The 2007 also negates the negative CNP I had from a Docotor in 2009 and my POA never noticed any of this any ways heeeeeeeelp Berta anyone please ....smile

have a decision on my remand sent by the BVA to the AMC/RO I found out from a phone call then I rechecked it they told me there was a decision on Sept 9 2013 from July 30 2013 on my Remand. The Remanded appeal from 2004 was sent to the AMC in Washington DC for the RO to either make a decision on or send out a SSOC and then send it back to the BVA in epedited fashion, also to deal with all the situations in the case/remand, but the case in remand is not closed or sent back to the BVA yet meaning they are still working on it. In the remand they added these words "as a final preliminary matter the EED for the increase I recieved in 2013" Now the Remand appeal is from 2004 but they only back dated me to 2012 of October from the increase for the appeal dated from 2004. Quiestion 1. Is there a chance that they have made either a partial decision or they have dealt with the EED? 2. Would it be possible for them to send me an early SSOC? 3. Do they send denial first then keep working on the case or is it the other way around the appoval? I also have a decision on a claim made on May 29 2013 that denied my increase but kept me at the same rate it was said to have been and Eligibility Determinatio on this and a CUE for the EED that was denied on may 29 2013. This same case denied my increase and the CUE I was told was at the rating board and another decision was made on Aug 27 2013 on the case for my increase (and possibly the CUE?) this Aug 27 case is in a status of a PREPARATION FOR NOTIFICATION, and the claim type is compensation not an Eligabilty Determination Quiestion 1. What is the difference between and Eligibility Determination and a Compensation Case? 2 Why would they deny me and increase first in may 28th for an Eligibility Determination on the PFB/skin condition and the CUe for the EED, then on AUg 27 call me on the phone to say the have made a descion on the PFB /Skin Condition ( possibly the CUE ont he EED) and that is is at the rating board and now awaiting signatures isnt this the same case done twice why would they deny me twice for the increase?

I have a decision on my remand sent by the BVA to the AMC/RO I found out from a phone call then I rechecked it they told me there was a decision on Sept 9 2013 from July 30 2013 on my Remand. The Remanded appeal from 2004 was sent to the AMC in Washington DC for the RO to either make a decision on or send out a SSOC and then send it back to the BVA in epedited fashion, also to deal with all the situations in the case/remand, but the case in remand is not closed or sent back to the BVA yet meaning they are still working on it. In the remand they added these words "as a final preliminary matter the EED for the increase I recieved in 2013" Now the Remand appeal is from 2004 but they only back dated me to 2012 of October from the increase for the appeal dated from 2004. Quiestion 1. Is there a chance that they have made either a partial decision or they have dealt with the EED? 2. Would it be possible for them to send me an early SSOC? 3. Do they send denial first then keep working on the case or is it the other way around the appoval? I also have a decision on a claim made on May 29 2013 that denied my increase but kept me at the same rate it was said to have been and Eligibility Determinatio on this and a CUE for the EED that was denied on may 29 2013. This same case denied my increase and the CUE I was told was at the rating board and another decision was made on Aug 27 2013 on the case for my increase (and possibly the CUE?) this Aug 27 case is in a status of a PREPARATION FOR NOTIFICATION, and the claim type is compensation not an Eligabilty Determination Quiestion 1. What is the difference between and Eligibility Determination and a Compensation Case? 2 Why would they deny me and increase first in may 28th for an Eligibility Determination on the PFB/skin condition and the CUe for the EED, then on AUg 27 call me on the phone to say the have made a descion on the PFB /Skin Condition ( possibly the CUE ont he EED) and that is is at the rating board and now awaiting signatures isnt this the same case done twice why would they deny me twice for the increase?

The claim was for upgrade?increase for skin condition PFB i am at 10 percent The original datre the increase was put in on Dec 14 2012 the increase was denied on may 28 2013 and the skin condition remained the same at ten percent The claim was in conjunction with and EED for my scars on another case from 2004 that was misread as a CUE Since then they seem to have reopened the claim and made a decision on the case August 27 for the skin condition and maybe they are talking about the Early Effective Date for the scar that they seemed to have missed well thats the info they seemed to have reopened the denial of the upgrade and the EED CUE so someone may have seen an error I dont know but maybe you can tell me im waiting for paperwork now.

I was denied in MAy 28 2013 but recieved information that my previously denied claim is at the rating board and awaiting a 12/14/2012 09/17/2013 to 11/10/2013 PREPARATION FOR NOTIFICATION Compensation on this decision Quiestion why would they brin gmy claim back up after denyin it and putting it in a preparation for notification phase thye say i am waiting for a signature what does that mean

May 28th 2013 I was given a denial letter on an increase, August they told me they had made a decision August 27 2013 on the same case they denied on MAy 28th 2013 and said they where going to send me a notification letter, 1 why would thye reopen my claim 2 Does this look like a decrease case 3 What are the odds that it is a increase

Excuse they said it will not be in by the first and they do not know if I am going to get it or not although I have gotten one for several years for steroid creams

Ok I called the prosthetics department in LI where i put in my clothing allottment today and they said it will not be in and that they make the descions on the claims as if I get a non static claim and if get one, two, or three clothing allottment checks. Quiestion 1 Do they decide this from one form filled out or shoud there be more then one form filled out Quiestion 2 Anyone get a clothing allottment from using steroid cremes etc (I do ) just wanted to know the criterea

Sorry they the AMC said not that they will decide my claim but they may decide my claim.

I am curious about the time frame of a remanded appeal because I received a letter and they said they will decide my claim in thirty days if I do not submit more evidence I sent them a letter stating I have no more evidence and please expedite my claim anyone have any experience on this matter or those laws below thank you. Public Law (PL) 103-446, Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 1994, mandates that remanded appeals be given special attention and expeditious processing. The VACOLS coordinator and Veterans Service Center (VSC) management are responsible for close control and timely processing of BVA remanded appeals. Upon receipt of a BVA remanded appeal the mailroom stamps the top of the document to show the date received claims folder is delivered to the Decision Review Officer (DRO), Veterans Service Center Manager (VSCM), or his/her designee on the same day, and DRO, VSCM, or his/her designee ensures that the top document shows the date received review and development of the remand are initiated within 15 days from the date of receipt, and VACOLS is updated within seven days. (Note: Use of end product (EP) 170 to control the remand is optional.) Important: The VSC should implement BVA’s grant or partial grant of benefits in any favorable decision before initiating development of the remanded appeal. Upon receipt of the requested evidence or after a reasonable effort to obtain evidence, the DRO or designee prepares a new decision or supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), and Returns the case to BVA after expiration of the 30-day response period.

Please explain the differences between a supplemental decision or Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC

They are Mild but they say that its Least likely as not connected to mmy acoustic trauma in service I also am service connected for Bilatereal tinnitus

Ok both of these have a Nexus Quiestion, what would the genreral rating be or is this compensable? I know the depression should be GAFscore a constant 45 to 55

Any news on clothing allottments in NY or NJ? Are they processing the claims at the Regional office, or where? Any body get it for using ointments and did anyone get two or more?

Berta or anyone can you tell me what this statement means to you please After completing the requested actions, and any additional notification and/or development deemed warranted, the RO should readjudicate the claims for higher ratings for status post hernia repair and scar due to hernia repairWith regard to the Veteran's claims for higher ratings for status post hernia repair and for scar due to hernia repair, the most recent VA examination for these disabilities was in August 2007. In the January 2012 Appellant's Brief, the Veteran's representative essentially argued that the symptoms associated with the status post hernia repair and the symptoms associated with the scar due to hernia repair had increased in severity since the August 2007 evaluation.

But since the initial remand of 2012 and the ten percent increase they have forgotten to use the evidence in 2007 Aug CNP wich I doucmented above and i recently got another remand dated june 30 2013 for them to take in consideration the 2007 CNP data that i reviewed and sent to them above through IRIs and Faxes is there any AMC fax number

Yes Berta that is my remand as stated and thank you.

To the Appeals Management Center 17221 I Street Washington DC Concerning Remanded Case Docket Number 05-00-259A I submit this. Page three of the remand paragraph three as stated “As a final and preliminary matter in February 13 Veteran disagreed with the effective date of his disability rating granted by the AMC in October 2012 rating decision. This claim for an earlier effective date has not yet been addressed by the RO. As such this matter is not properly before the Board and is thus referred to the RO for appropriate action. I am still waiting on this matter for the early effective date any type of action on the appeal from Nov 2003 Upgrade in the Oct 2012 10 percent increase so I can move forward the appeal was made in 2004 of march for a case from November of 2003 2 .As noted in 2012 Board remand after the issuance of June 26 SSCO the Veteran underwent an August 2007 VA exam no Documentation for consideration of that evidence is applied in neither discussion this is all connected to the appeal was made in 2004 of march for a case from November of 2003. August 31 2007 Mental Disorder claim Increase Secondary conditiont operation after reviewing the CNP by Doctor Abby Varkey Kurian MD approved by Paula Jenkins I see the term used by the CNP doctor as likely as not the patients depressive symptoms are secondary residuals of my service connected operation condition i.e. The weight gain to 274lbs, Sexual dysfunction I etc. I apply the following in terms of the 2007 evidence 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b). Section 5107(b) expressly provides that the benefit of the doubt rule must be applied to a claim when the evidence submitted in support of the claim is in relative equipoise. The evidence is in relative equipoise when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence which does not satisfactorily prove or disprove the claim. When the evidence is in relative equipoise, the reasonable doubt rule must be applied to the claim, and thus, the claim must be resolved in favor of the claimant. See Massey v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 204, 206-207 (1994); Hayes v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 60, 69-70 (1993); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-56 (1990). A nexus has been formed in this case when the term 3 What is the status of my remand I am currently hospitalized and looking for housing due to my current status. What phase is my Remand in \? 4. in the letter sent to me dated Aug 7 2007, in reply refer to 397/JG they stated “We have Obtained all outstanding pertinent records of evaluation and treatment from New York Harbor (since April 13 2012) and Hudson Valley (since Dec 22 2005), and New Jersey (since May 2006)” In the Aug 24 2007 Audio Exam done by Benajmen-Mckie, Angela approve by Paula Jenkins “term is as least likely as not the(50/50 profanity) that the mild threshold shift in hearing acuity is due to or caused by acoustic trauma related to the veterans military noise exposure during service this also applicable to the benefits of the doubt rule used in terms of me the veteran and my case thank you Please Mail to me all answers to my address 79b this is all the evidence I have there is nothing else I need to use in my case no outside records etc thank you

Berta what percentage if any should I be looking for would they base it on what my past life had been as well as the now or what?

The Remand I have that the BVA ordered to the AMC has asked them, to 1. Review an August 2007 CNP for an Increase directly related to my service connected disability that is part of the initial appeal documented in 2004, 2 they denied me in 2006 and then ordered another CNP in 2007 they never sent a SSOC on the 2007 CNP or even a denial letter they ignored this CNP in 2007 3. The BVA stated in the Remand " in 2012 march remanded case after the issuance of the June 2006 SSOC the Veteran underwent an August 2007 VA Exam, the RO certified the claim to the board in 2001 without issuing an SSOC documenting consideration of that evidence as required by reg 38CFR, 19.31, 1937(2012). Thus the board remanded the matter on appeal for initial consideration of the Aug 2007 exam i.e. CNP report" 4. The BVA then stated the July 2013 remand that the AMC did accomplish some of the additional development they still did not consider the Aug. 2007 CNP i.e. exam they Oct. 2012 SSCO on documents consideration of the April 2012 exam which is was granted a ten percent increase and I ma in the process of asking for and EED back to 2004 not 2012 5. IN the Aug 2007 CNP it stated as axis level one Adjustment disorder with depressed mood secondary to sexual problems the Doctor also stated the it is likely as not the patients depressive symptoms are secondary to the residuals of the service connected operation, which I believe forms the nexus and necessary for them to proceed to either provide a SSOC with a reason for the denial based on the evidence or grant me back to at least 2007 with a possible mental health diagnosis due to my operation, possibly depression and adjustment disorder based on the term likely as not which I believe means fifty probability and that is in the Veterans favor most of the time and I do believe they have formed a Nexus 6 Seems like the RO and the AMC denied looking at this 2007 CNP not purposely not sending it to the BVA for consideration on two separate remands, and also not sending me SSCO with a denial hoping it would fall through the cracks but the BVA caught it. and I went to ROIF (release of information) I got a copy of the Aug 2007 CNP and thanks to hadit was able to understand what the Doctor was saying in my CNP using the term Likely as not

The Remand I have that the BVA ordered to the AMC has asked them, to 1. Review an August 2007 CNP for an Increase directly related to my service connected disability that is part of the initial appeal documented in 2004, 2 they denied me in 2006 and then ordered another CNP in 2007 they never sent a SSOC on the 2007 CNP or even a denial letter they ignored this CNP in 2007 3. The BVA stated in the Remand " in 2012 march remanded case after the issuance of the June 2006 SSOC the Veteran underwent an August 2007 VA Exam, the RO certified the claim to the board in 2001 without issuing an SSOC documenting consideration of that evidence as required by reg 38CFR, 19.31, 1937(2012). Thus the board remanded the matter on appeal for initial consideration of the Aug 2007 exam i.e. CNP report" 4. The BVA then stated the July 2013 remand that the AMC did accomplish some of the additional development they still did not consider the Aug. 2007 CNP i.e. exam they Oct. 2012 SSCO on documents consideration of the April 2012 exam which is was granted a ten percent increase and I ma in the process of asking for and EED back to 2004 not 2012 5. IN the Aug 2007 CNP it stated as axis level one Adjustment disorder with depressed mood secondary to sexual problems the Doctor also stated the it is likely as not the patients depressive symptoms are secondary to the residuals of the service connected operation, which I believe forms the nexus and necessary for them to proceed to either provide a SSOC with a reason for the denial based on the evidence or grant me back to at least 2007 with a possible mental health diagnosis due to my operation, possibly depression and adjustment disorder based on the term likely as not which I believe means fifty probability and that is in the Veterans favor most of the time and I do believe they have formed a Nexus 6 Seems like the RO and the AMC denied looking at this 2007 CNP not purposely not sending it to the BVA for consideration on two separate remands, and also not sending me SSCO with a denial hoping it would fall through the cracks but the BVA caught it. and I went to ROIF (release of information) I got a copy of the Aug 2007 CNP and thanks to hadit was able to understand what the Doctor was saying in my CNP using the term Likely as not

Thanks all Thanks for the input 1. I recieved an intial SCD non compehensable raing in 2004 I appealed within a year of theis rating and then also file a NOD all withing the time period 2. I recieved an intial CNP in 2007 was denied and recieved no SOC from the AMC/RO It was remanded back by BVA to AMC in 2012 I then recieved a CNP in 2012 of April where I was denied one part but granted another part at ten percent of this intial non compehensabel rating 2004 Denial bu to only backdated to 2012 of APril not from when the appeal was first opened in 2004 Quiestion I Should get EED bases on me filing apeal within a year and any evidence should be included due to BVA nvere making ruling COrrect?

Thanks for the input 1. I recieved an intial SCD non compehensable raing in 2004 I appealed within a year of theis rating and then also file a NOD all withing the time period 2. I recieved an intial CNP in 2007 was denied and recieved no SOC from the AMC/RO It was remanded back by BVA to AMC in 2012 I then recieved a CNP in 2012 of April where I was denied one part but granted another part at ten percent of this intial non compehensabel rating 2004 Denial bu to only backdated to 2012 of APril not from when the appeal was first opened in 2004 Quiestion I Should get EED bases on me filing apeal within a year and any evidence should be included due to BVA nvere making ruling COrrect?