john999

I think I would go ask these questions from a CPA. You don't want to make some kind of mistake and then find out you are wrong. If this is going to cause problems with compensation I would get an expert to tell me.

Are we talking about earned income or any income? I have no earned income but some passive income from investments.

One thing is you don't want any medical records going to the VA unless you have a chance to screen them yourself.

BVA appeal decisions are not precedent setting. If you have a court appeal decision that would be gold if it fits your claim. Court appeal decisions set precedent.

You know the BVA actually changed my diagnosis in my CUE claim. They changed my DX from residuals of schizophrenia to chronic, undifferentiated schizophrenia. For this I was awarded 10%. Who has ever heard of someone with chronic schizophrenia being only 10% disabled? They still denied my CUE. The VA had not considered the DX of chronic, undifferentiated schizophrenia until they looked at the evidence from my doctor 40 years ago which had been excluded from the record in my rating.

Was he ever treated for a mental health condition while in the AF? That helps if he was, but is not the only answer. I was treated for two months in the military and then thrown out on my $#@, so it is helpful but not complete.

If you mention the back injury the VA is going to say that is why you can't work. Get SC'ed for PTSD and then file for IU. You need evidence that you can't work due solely to the PTSD. Never mention your back injury in any claim for compensation with the VA.

Still here I agree with that. Without IMO's I would still be at 30%. My last cardiac C&P was just a sham done by a PA. I appealed and got 60%.

File for the PTSD. What you need is a diagnosis of PTSD from the VA. Do you have a diagnosis for PTSD from a VA psychiatrist and are you gettting treatment for PTSD? Your state disability and VA are different.

The VARO has called me before with information. It is rare but it has happened.

Teac You know vets who are awarded 100% schedular are supposed to be considered for "S". If this is so why would not TDIU vets with one disability of 60% not be considered for "S"? We have a bunch of techical language, but what is the intent? I don't think anyone can prove a vet with 100% for multiple disabilites is any less disabled than a 100% for single issue. I just think vets should push for more. If they are not pushing for more the VA will subtract over time. I am not trying to start a spitball fight just to encourage vets to keep pushing.

Berta Right, the VA is supposed to consider a 100% schedular vet for SMC "S" when the 100% is awarded. It does not mean they have to award it, but I think they never consider it. They only consider it if you claim it. To me that is an error according to the VA's own words. I bet if you took a poll of every 100% vet almost none would have a decision where it said the VA considered "S" and either denied it or approved it. So this is a way for the VA to hold onto the money and let the vet die.

You could have agent orange presumptive disease for 20 years and until you put in a claim you get nothing. They don't go back to the first time you had symptoms only to when you filed for it.

I took the chemical stress test with an echo before and after. I also took the treadmill test. The treadmill test was a failure since I have foot problems. I don't even know why they set me up for it. I have PN so how do I do the treadmill. The chemical test was no problem. You can get hurt on the treadmill just by losing your footing. Neither one of these tests are conclusive for heart disease. The only real way to tell if an artery is blocked is the invasive test where they run the wire up through your groin. The VA would never swing for that for a C&P exam. Has anyone had the invasive test done?

I think Bradley v Peake opens up an issue that needs to be revisited via the court of vet appeal regarding the "S" SMC. Is it for a certain category of totally disabled vets or just certain totally disabled vets. I believe the decision opened it up and now there will be a push to include every vet who is total plus 60% to go for it. So the only way for a veteran who does not fit the tight guideline of Bradley to get "S" is to file a claim and follow it all the way. If the court can disagree on a policy the VA has followed for years (100% for one disability plus 60%) then they can consider 100% for more than one disability plus 60% for "S". I have a horse in the race since I am IU/70% plus 60%. I think that is a good decision, but I can't see why someone with 100% for more than one disability(plus 60%) should be excluded from consideration for "S". It is a technical issue, but is not logical. We need to follow the law to get benefits but we need to try and expand it just as TDIU/plus 60% was expanded. Vets with 100% for more than one issue can be more disabled than a vet with one 100% disability. If a vet is 100% they are considered totally disabled. Total disability is the question. Am I wrong about that?

My question would be how could chronic breathing problems not have an impact on a heart condition? My cardiac C&P exam at the Tampa VAMC was a joke. If you have the schedule for the exam it would be interesting to see if the VA follows it. You may have a PA or NP do the exam.

When the VA uses the word "reasonable" that is open to interpretation. They VA could say NO a hundred times and I would still file the claim, and appeal if I must. The ruling on IU and "S" seems weird to me from logical point of view. If you are total plus 60 why should it make a difference how you get there. That was the point of Bradley v Peake to blow Schedular 100% plus 60% out of the water. Total is total no matter how you get there, and reasonable minds can agree or disagree but this point needs to be explored in the only way possible which is to appeal any denials right to the court. When the VA uses the word "reasonable" it usually means you, the vet, are unreasonable and they, the VA, are reasonable. I disagree with that in a big way.

What kills me is that this will take time and VAF's husband does not get interest on the money that is denied. If the VA just had to pay interest on claims in which they deny due process that would end this, but that won't happen. Now VAF has to file an appeal. When they screw up a VCAA letter are then not denying due process?

I don't see how the VA can deny a claim with a VCAA letter. More BS from the VA. They probably think you won't follow-up and fight this. When they do these things no one ever gets punished. The VA has a problem with due process.

Draggin You have many issues and you have to prove each one is service connected or low balled via your SMR's and possible IMO's. You will have to very carefully organized your evidence so the VA does not make a mess out of it. Consider that you are dealing with almost 30 separate issues. Maybe later on you can combine some of these issues and get to 100%.

If you claim "S" based on TDIU plus 60% should not your award go back to the date you became eligible and not the date you filed since this is a statutory award. A vet should not even have to file for it (ha,ha). I have been eligible for over two years but only found out recently.

This is one place where we should try and avoid being too judgemental. It is not easy, but we should recognize our triggers. People stop sharing when they think they will be judged. Half the people here with any stress problems have used tobacco, alcohol or drugs to medicate themselves.

You would not want to mix a NOD with a Reconsideration request in the same document anyway. This is just too much for the VA to comprehend. You should keep it simple. Remember, if a six grader can't understand it then the VA can't understand it. I would drive to the VARO and get date stamped copy.

You know if you have two stress tests and one says you have a problem and one says you don't you should get the benefit of doubt. You have a tie on the results, so the tie goes to the runner (vet). This happened to me. I had a treadmill test that said I had IHD and a chemical test that said I did not. I got 60% on appeal with no other evidence. The only thing I can think of is benefit of doubt. The VA should have given me a third test and I don't know why they didn't.

VAF If he is rated as total plus 60% then I don't think he has to be TDIU plus 60%. I think the VA is nitpicking to try and get around an award. The idea is that if a vet is totally disabled and has at least 60% above and beyond that rating he should get "S". This is my take on it. Of course, I don't read English the way the VA does. I don't do math the same way either.