31Bravo

https://asknod.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/cavc-jones-v-shinseki-diarrhea-vs-loose-stools/

Very simply, VA cannot rate you on the residuals of medications unless it is contemplated in the ratings.

Look at the Part 4 ratings language, sir. There is where the conundrum is solved. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/4.104

Read it carefully and you will not see any discussion on medication dos or don'ts. No requirement that says eat meds and come test with us. Anything that is not prescribed-or proscribed- is what the regulation can be read to say. If there is no mention of METs while on the drug designed to suppress it, the clear presumption of regularity ensues and it is presumed that if the good VA Secretary Bob had wanted to insert "while on meds" in the regulation, then by golly he would have. Absent any language, it would seem rational to test you without them as a baseline. Rational is not in the VA's lexicon.

I merely recite the regulation for your benefit. VA is notorious for low ball ratings. They go so far as to lead you into saying something (or nothing) and use it as either condemning evidence or lack of evidence. Damned if you do and vice versa. I always read a denial very carefully and then read the regulation and the rating code to ascertain if it's all above board. Most often it is not. I never thought for a minute you were arguing about it. You're a fellow Vietnam Vet. Why would I argue with you? I want you to be 250% in the money. If they owe you ,you take it. If they don't, then leave it. Welcome home. Glad you made it back.

VA chieu hoi'd this PM directly from Cheeseville, Wisconsin. Gave me SMC S back to 94 before the Writ $hit hits the fan next week. Best $50 I ever spent. Who would have thunk it? DROs at Cheeseville and Newnan now?

It ain't over until the 100% fat lady sings
https://asknod.wordpress.com/2015/02/22/cavc-birth-of-a-writ-act-iii-scene-3-two-tickets-to-paradise/

Wrong Mr Basser. I've got my eye on a 65 clip wing cub tail dragger that's rigged for acrobatics.
Clear prop

The seminal question is first- Are you, indeed rated as TDIU or Permanent and Total with a combination of diseases/injuries that, when combined, rendered you unemployable or just one that does? For example, a 60% back disability, a 70% PTSD, rating and a 40% Diabetes 2 and a few 20% and 10%s that reach 100%///// And then a new batch of 60% worth of totally unrelated ailments to any of the batch that made you 100% (or TDIU) ? Amazing. Most who get this attain TDIU from a 70% rating and then end up with all the extra 60% on the other side of the P&T. Either that or some of the more ill have a 100% rating for a disease and again a few 40%s and 30%s that finally go over the extra 60. A 70% and two 60%s will get you to 100% but that's a lot of big ratings for most and not be housebound in reality. VA doesn't count non-service connected ratings towards the SMC S- just the ones you are SC for.
a
cp

If they awarded it in 2013, it became a Fenderson staged rating with a hitch, Always remember the "deemed denied" logic. If you do not object, complain, or file any motion seeking action on an unfinished claim, technically it must be assumed VA denied it at the time they made the other award in 1992. However, with the PEB/MEB info in the c-file, it most definitely becomes a horse of a different color. This is definitely not CUE. The doctrine of Laches keeps this one open forever until it is acted upon. The deemed denied theory most often applies when another claim filed simultaneously is denied. If VA doesn't mention it specifically, you are left to assume all of the claims were denied.
Here, you have the perfect vehicle to go "Back to the Future". You won, You file a NOD for the EED of 1992. VA digs their heels in and refuses to grant. You cite Fenderson and Manio and vociferously point out the claim is still open until it can be determined VA either approved or denied it. Absent anything in the c file to show it was denied, it's still viable. It's infinitely easier to go after this on a NOD than CUE-and far easier to win, I might add.

I got my 1994 EED on my Hep via a Fenderson interpretation and a long discussion about 38 CFR 19.29 and VAOGCPREC 9-97.

Clear prop

<<<<A proposal to change a benefit (i.e. to decrease a SC rating) is also not an issue for appeals action.>>>>

Last time I checked it was. http://asknod.wordpress.com/2014/06/17/cavc-wells-v-shinseki-the-va-giveth-and-the-va-taketh-away/
Seems the Senior Veterans Service Alliance is having a senior moment.

Additionally, there is no discussion of the availability of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the US Supreme Court. Somebody should enlighten these fellows.