green

Thanks T-bird
 

Flores, I am happy for you and that you have seen this to completion and received the rating you were looking for.  Congrats my friend.

Hiya Flores, long time no talk
I also emailed the new Secretary this afternoon regarding my long awaited C-File and my 9 years of missing medical records from Alaska.

The only communication I had from the DAV was begging for money!
 

I'm FERS, I was required to apply for SSDI, but as I'm currently working I was denied.  I was told to reapply once I stopped working.  FERS disability is reduced if you receive SSDI but once you hit age 62 you get 100% of your FERS retirement and SSDI.  I believe SSDI converts to regular Social Security at normal retirement age, 67 for me.

I was rated in April of last year on several conditions.  I applied for a rating on peripheral neuropathy of my feet and hands and had a nerve conduction study done and attached to my request.  When I received my rating they incorrectly stated that for my legs/feet I was rated at 20% because a higher rating of 30% couldn't be assigned as it required incomplete paralysis.  They should have used the Sciatic Nerve criteria which actually has 5 different potential ratings.  Is this an area where I should ask the VA to CUE theirselves?
Under the rating criteria they must have utilized the wrong rating criteria, as the C&P exam referenced the Sciatic Nerve.  30% isn't even an option under 8520 there is actually levels they neglected to address:
My C&P
          Sciatic nerve
 
            Right: [ ] Normal   [X] Incomplete paralysis   [ ] Complete paralysis
           
                   If Incomplete paralysis is checked, indicate severity:
                   [ ] Mild          [X] Moderate          [ ] Moderately Severe
                   [ ] Severe, with marked muscular atrophy
                  
            Left: [ ] Normal   [X] Incomplete paralysis   [ ] Complete paralysis
          
                   If Incomplete paralysis is checked, indicate severity:
                   [ ] Mild          [X] Moderate          [ ] Moderately Severe
                   [ ] Severe, with marked muscular atrophy
How Sensory Loss Should be Rated
M21-1lll_iv_4_SecG.  This document was updated in January of last year. 
b  Assigning Level of Incomplete Paralysis
The table below provides a general description of each level of incomplete paralysis of the upper and lower peripheral nerves.
 
Degree of Incomplete Paralysis
Description
Mild
subjective symptoms or diminished sensation
 
Moderate
absence of sensation confirmed by objective findings
Severe
more than sensory findings are demonstrated, such as atrophy, weakness, and diminished reflexes.
 
Issues addressed related to atrophy, weakness and diminished reflexes
C&P
    b. Deep tendon reflexes (DTRs)
   
Rate reflexes according to the following scale:
         0  Absent
         1+ Decreased
         2+ Normal
         3+ Increased without clonus
         4+ Increased with clonus
       Knee:
         Right: [X] 0  [ ] 1+  [ ] 2+  [ ] 3+  [ ] 4+
         Left:  [X] 0  [ ] 1+  [ ] 2+  [ ] 3+  [ ] 4+ 
       Ankle:
         Right: [X] 0  [ ] 1+  [ ] 2+  [ ] 3+  [ ] 4+
         Left:  [X] 0  [ ] 1+  [ ]
Nerve Conduction Study:
6/16/2015 "Brief neurological exam: Symptom focused neurological exam
shows loss of sensation in the hands and feet, absent ankle jerks and give way right foot dorsiflexion weakness.
VA Podiatry notes:
Musculoskeletal:  The major joints of the foot and ankle have adequate ROM
bilaterally without crepitus.  Dorsiflexion of the hallux and foot is weak
 
bilaterally.  Remaining muscle groups have adequate strength. "
 
Sciatic nerve.
8520    Paralysis of:
 
                  Complete; the foot dangles and drops, no active movement possible
                        of muscles below the knee, flexion of knee weakened or (very
                        rarely) lost.......................................................................................................... 80
                  Incomplete:
                        Severe, with marked muscular atrophy.............................................................. 60
                        Moderately severe ............................................................................................. 40
                        Moderate............................................................................................................ 20
                        Mild    ................................................................................................................ 10
 
There is actually a "Moderately Severe" rating where I believe I should have been rated as I may not have severe paralysis I certainly exceed the criteria spelled out in M21-1lll_iv_4_SecG for "Moderate".

Their choice of words is confusing so I can understand why you were thinking all vets would have to pay copays now, but actually they're just changing copays for people who already pay them. It says below the chart that Priority 1 will not pay co-pays, and that the tier list only applies to priority groups 2-8. Priority 1 is all vets 50% SC or vets deemed unemployable (TDIU?). So if you weren't paying co-pays before you won't be paying them now.

I am in the same boat. I was let go from my federal job for PTSD on 2 July. I put my disability retirement package in around the end of June. I received a call from an ABC counselor about a week after I put my package in and he gave me my initial counseling over the phone on what to expect. I was told the average time it takes is six months. If that is true I should hear something back around December. Good luck. I hope this helps, Bill

It took me one year but HR sat on it until I pushed the issue. I had some fellow co workers that were close to retirement age and they got it in about 3 months from time of filing to decision.

While I agree with Vync, maybe you could appeal this.  It sounds crazy the va rates you 100 percent and VA insurance says no.  

Hey Green,
Are you P&T and also employed? If so, then that's why.
It's a bit like false advertising. The VA can award you P&T status, which is considered "totally disabled" for various purposes, but then you find out that other parts of the VA use a different definition for "totally disabled". Also, keep in mind that you are talking about life insurance here. The more people they can keep out of the program means the less that they have to pay out one day.

I also am thankful for what I receive, that doesn't negate the impact of my disabilities.  I believe the "glass half full" or positive attitude is not only helpful to ourselves, but to those who spend time around us as well.

Also  it's good Idea   when your ebennny's is working good...print off everything then ALL LETTERS.& anything else you want copirs of...then you have  them.

I think the confusion is we are talking about two different issues:
1. What is required to file a claim
2. What is required to win a claim

I'm happy to say that on Hadit we don't judge others but rather assume veterans are ethical and have their fair share of integrity.  By approaching veterans with this mindset we focus on helping rather than judging.  There are other sites that focus on judging and believe that the majority of veterans (new posters)  are looking for undeserved handouts, as such they offend a significant number of hurting folks.  I personally think the environment here is much more helpful and productive.

I'm happy to say that on Hadit we don't judge others but rather assume veterans are ethical and have their fair share of integrity.  By approaching veterans with this mindset we focus on helping rather than judging.  There are other sites that focus on judging and believe that the majority of veterans (new posters)  are looking for undeserved handouts, as such they offend a significant number of hurting folks.  I personally think the environment here is much more helpful and productive.

I'm happy to say that on Hadit we don't judge others but rather assume veterans are ethical and have their fair share of integrity.  By approaching veterans with this mindset we focus on helping rather than judging.  There are other sites that focus on judging and believe that the majority of veterans (new posters)  are looking for undeserved handouts, as such they offend a significant number of hurting folks.  I personally think the environment here is much more helpful and productive.

I'm happy to say that on Hadit we don't judge others but rather assume veterans are ethical and have their fair share of integrity.  By approaching veterans with this mindset we focus on helping rather than judging.  There are other sites that focus on judging and believe that the majority of veterans (new posters)  are looking for undeserved handouts, as such they offend a significant number of hurting folks.  I personally think the environment here is much more helpful and productive.

I'm happy to say that on Hadit we don't judge others but rather assume veterans are ethical and have their fair share of integrity.  By approaching veterans with this mindset we focus on helping rather than judging.  There are other sites that focus on judging and believe that the majority of veterans (new posters)  are looking for undeserved handouts, as such they offend a significant number of hurting folks.  I personally think the environment here is much more helpful and productive.

The Windfall provision does not apply to Normal Federal FERS Retirement.  There is however provisions related to Federal Disability Retirement and ArNG11 is correct.  The first year you receive 60% of your high-3 which is offset 100% by SSDI, starting the second year your pay goes to 40% of your high-3 and that is offset by 60% of your SSDI.  At age 62, your FERS disability retirement is recalculated as if you had worked the time you were disabled and your SSDI continues on but no longer offsets your FERS retirement.
Clear as mud?

I'm also sorry to hear about this, appreciate your willingness to help us here at Hadit.

Navy4life, I am sorry to hear about your fall, and I hope you receive a DRO decision very quickly!! You definitely want to let your RO know that you will have to have additional surgery on your foot, so that they can extend your temp 100% rating for convalescence!! Don't worry about the General Counsel question, your DRO should definitely be able to make a decision on your NOD, JFREI if I remember correctly had a very complex claim with a lot of complicated legal questions, which is why it had to go to General Counsel, and I am glad that he was successful in that claim through dedication and perseverance! Navy, I pray that you will get a great decision, keep your head up, we are all behind you 100%, and hope you receive a great decision and feel better soon!!

Sorry to hear you are having a difficult time N4L.  Hope things improve quickly and your wait ends with good news.

Brokensoldier244th,
I beg to disagree with you, I have used this process to deal directly with the individual identified. So do many attorneys, I might point out. . There is nothing easier than dealing directly with the chucklehead who screwed up something at a RO. I have walked in and asked to speak with the named fellow or gal and been granted the request several times at the Seattle Regional Office. I now have Ms. Mackey-Rivas as well as several others on my email rolodex  and correspond with them regularly to clear up discrepancies in my ratings. The relationship is not adversarial. Always remember, the Veteran is the customer, not VA. Why do you have to attribute negative motives to attaining free knowledge? I'm not outing anyone. The information is there to be had. Any tool in a Veteran's bag should be employed if it results in a grant sooner. The object of my post is to disseminate valuable knowledge. 
I helped a gal in Chicago get her WW2 dad his 100% P&T after identifying the bozo who inadvertently turned it into a pension claim. It took 21 days to straighten it out. She walked in and talked to  the director and had it fixed in less than an hour. The director called in the rater named and he immediately admitted to being "misinformed" by the VSO. 
Ah, I remember you from Peggy's Pink site now. I had to go over there and look you up. You're one of their ten-year koolaid drinkers. No offense intended but even some of my Veterans Law Judge friends used to consider Cruiser either someone who purposefully led Vets astray or was grossly uninformed on VA regulations. His grasp of Hepatitis C law and etiology was clouded by his brother's heroin addiction and subsequent death due to it. The Olde Medic was similarly deluded in his understanding of Hepatitis C and used to hand out absolutely horrible advice on the subject. Mr. "Medic" used to insist that if your Service Treatment Records (STRs) did not show evidence of HCV infection in service, your claim was doomed. Might I point out a Vietnam Veteran like myself could not possibly have a disease discovered in 1989 in his 1969 medical records? In this business, if you want to engage in discourse on a subject, it pays to have immense knowledge of what you speak. The worst thing a Veteran can do is to offer misinformation, or worse, knowingly false information while appearing to be someone who is knowledgeable on the given subject. That kind of disservice to one's fellow Veteran is beneath anyone who moderates here or at my site. If we don't know, we look it up. We don't take another hit of Bourbon and strap on an imaginary M.D. after our names.  
If you wish to see which Veterans Help sites are considered reputable by those who adjudicate VA claims at the BVA, read the following article. Don't take my word for it. Hadit.com and asknod.org are held in high esteem in the legal world by many legal circles-including NOVA. Theresa and I didn't get this far offering shoddy advice. The folks we counsel win based on a foundation of the knowledge and experience of those who came before. 
Peggy's Pink site should have  a sign out front that says "Why waste your time?. Your claim is doomed. Why even bother filing?". The article was published in no less a venue that the United States Circuit for Federal Claims Bar Journal. See page 381, footnote # 73. It seems odd they omitted old Dean and the gang from that list. Trust me. I asked them. They consider it  a " negative, unhelpful and discouraging" site to those who come looking for advice. 
I apologize if I sound rude, sir. My job is not to be popular. It is to help Vets-all Vets- regardless of their disease or injury- get what they earned. It most definitely is not to impede them from their quest. 
http://www.veteranslawlibrary.com/files/Articles/NowistheTime.pdf
 
 

Theresa, (and all of you.) I tend to break some eggs occasionally. I try not to.
Privacy is utmost in my/our business. I could have a condo in every major South American city with all the SSNs and DOBs. I have never divulged a single Veteran's personal data without redaction (and permission) for teaching purposes. Those old documents illustrate what many will find in their 1960s-70s c-files. Again, no personal info but a wealth of mistakes we learn from. On the other hand, those of us who venture to the CAVC or CAFC, relinquish the right to that privacy. VA employees, by electing to get a cush government job, lose that protection as well. Any VA GS employee signs away that privilege. Your and my name, unless an appeal involving very personal information or evidence of a sexual nature, have our name published at the CAVC/CAFC Court sites. The record is open for all to view because this is America.
With that said, the purpose of the post was not to obtain a name for retribution. Nowhere in my blog did I suggest anything other than honorable reasons for obtaining this in order to facilitate a quicker resolution to the claim.  For many, time is of the essence due to finances or health. The shortest distance from A to B in this business is knowledge. VA chooses, for whatever reason, to mask their players in this game. In 1975, when I was attempting to get a VA  home loan (while still single), I'd go in to see the VA Home loan rater and see if I could get a loan but avoid marriage. The Secretary at the front said "Go on back. He's  the third desk on the left. Mr. Peterson." I had to get married to fix it. The simple point being is I knew him after three visits. I didn't have to make an appointment 3 months in advance on an 800 number. That is the drift of this post. This is 2016. You can text a message to the moon but not an email to the rater ninety miles away ?
To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I used to build houses. If the truss truck was late, you did something else. Any work around that keeps your claim in motion is a valuable tool worth exploiting. Many here remember the Golden Claims era several years ago. Call up Allison or Bob and get a winner in a week. Many of us used it to success and even more (me) to an expedited SOC denial. Regardless, we used it because we could and it was there. This is no different but I should not have to make that case.Did you feel guilty about having Under Secretary Hickey's number and calling her uninvited? Were you rude? 
The gentleman felt the tenor of my blog was to gain knowledge for evil purposes. This shows a marked propensity to paint Veterans as capable of, or an  inclination, to resort to physical violence. That may or may not be a personality disorder on his part that would cause him to mention it.... but it is identical to the tenor of the help site being discussed. It's not some ugly secret that I was censored and removed for violating their "anti-VA comments" codicil. I apologize for doing it because we should all work together in harmony to promote knowledge. I failed. Defending one school of thought (VSO=God) to the mutual exclusion of even listening to others' knowledge and going so far as to suppress/censor it is their right on their site. I  firmly defend their right to do so.  
The obverse of this coin is that they should at least put up a disclaimer that the information proffered on their site is suspect, perhaps slanted against the best interests of the Vet, and  certain opinions that state otherwise  have been removed to promote peace and harmony on the site and avoid dissention. Knowledge is power. If you suppress it, you are not doing anyone any good. If you think suppressing others' thoughts is helpful, do tell us why. This isn't about who's website is cooler or who gets more hits. It never was. It's not who gets Johnny Vet his win. If it's a VSO, wonderful. If it was an attorney, then he won and you pay him. If the Vet read how to do it here, then cool beans and we all won. We. Not me. Not Theresa. Veterans won. Ken Carpenter or Bob Walsh won.  Every win is a vindication that they get 65% of your claims wrong. There will never be anything I am ashamed of writing about other than VA's propensity to shortchange us. Any tactical advantage I find, I share. It sure doesn't do any of you any good in my pocket.