paulcolrain

not wanting to get to involved in the absolute of this but,,,,, has anyone heard of a Washington DC Judge find his way around pyramiding....? his order describes that i DESERVE A HIGHER RATING IN ADDITION TO THE ALREADY BILAT 10%,,,, THEN EXPLAINS WITH DETAIL THE NEW SERVICE CONNECTIONS... MY POINT IS,, A LAYMAN WOULD NEVER PUT THIS BEFORE A JUDGE AND WOULDNT KNOW INS AND OUTS OF LAWS THAT THIS JUDGE DOES......THE JUDGE IS ORDERING THE RIGHT TO PYRAMID BUT HE IS DESCRIBING IT SO DIFFERENT IN LEGAL TERMS THAT IT IS NOW CLEAR OF PYRAMID .......... SO THEN THE QUESTION REMAINS,, COULD THE RATER OVER RIDE THE JUDGE??? IM DOUBTFUL THAT COULD HAPPEN EVER...... maybe the judge is looking at ESTEBAN v BROWN

its interesting but a ton of more precise info would need to be read here. to be honest,,, it seems as if you probably have a claim for earlier effective date based on date of original diagnosis. for instance... was the informal claim ever picked up on? if so , did you appeal? if not why? and most important ,,, what makes you know an informal claim was put it????

ok my point or question is,,, im used to claiming for a new service connection and then if denied or granted at the RO level i know what my next steps are and if its continued denied or not increased i know that i can take appeal all the way to the judge... well in this instance,,, the board of veterans appeals judge granted me a new service connection based on evidence found in the hearing... im greatful but now if i want an increase do i appeal back to judge or is this treated as if RO Granted????

WHAT KIND OF LAWS FOLLOW WHEN THE JUDGE GRANTS A NEW SERVICE CONNECTION THAT WAS NOT ON APPEAL BUT IT WAS FOUND WITHIN THE RECORD. ? LIKE DO I STILL HAVE RIGHT OF APPEAL ?

Congratulations! wow sounds like a real big win... fantastic!!! Never Give UP!!!

In support of the claim to reopen, the Veteran has submitted a 2015 medical report of his private physician. This family practitioner reviewed the claims file, and noted that the Veteran had Legg-Calves-Perthes (LCP) disease in the left hip. This is a childhood genetic deformity involving the merger of the femoral head and the hip joint. The doctor noted that the Veteran's disorder "largely resolved with bracing" prior to service entry, although there was some "mild loss of range of motion." As of 2002, prior to service entry, there was no impaired hip function of any degree. The right hip was not affected by LCP disease. The Veteran reported falling off of his bunk in basic training and significantly stressing his hip during the heavy physical training demands of that initial period of service required of all enlisted soldiers. In June 2004, the Veteran was placed on a physical profile as due to bilateral hip pain, and shortly after discharge in March 2005, the Veteran's physician noted a decrease in range of motion for both hips. It was concluded, unequivocally, that the additional disability from a normal baseline prior to service entry "demonstrate[d] aggravation of the left hip during military service." Further, an October 2012 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study revealed a "large labral tear" in the hips which, the Veteran's doctor noted, was "less consistent with LCP" and "more consistent with intense trauma." The "wear and tear" of military service, to include the falls from the Veteran's bunk and the physical stress of training (noted in service as bilateral hip pain necessitating a physical profile and, eventually, removal from service), was deemed to be an "injury" to both hips that "will also likely aggravate the left hip beyond the natural progression" of the LCP disease process. This opinion is new, in that it was not of record at the time of the denial in 2011, and it is material, in that is relates a current left hip disability to in-service aggravation and a right hip disability to an in-service event. As this is the case, the claim for entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hip disability is reopened. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. Applicable law provides that service connection will be granted if it is shown that the Veteran experiences a disability resulting from an injury or disease contracted in the line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury or disease contracted in the line of duty, in the active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.30. That an injury or disease occurred in service alone is not enough; there must be current disability resulting from that injury. Service connection may also be granted for any injury or disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease or injury was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). Service connection generally requires evidence of a current disability with a relationship or connection to an injury or disease or some other manifestation of the disability during service. Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Mercado-Martinez v. West, 11 Vet. App. 415, 419 (1998) (citing Cuevas v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 542, 548 (1992)). Establishing service connection generally requires evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in- service disease or injury and the present disability. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A Veteran is presumed to have been in sound condition when examined, accepted and enrolled for service except as to defects, infirmities, or disorders noted at entrance into service, or where clear and unmistakable evidence demonstrates that an injury or disease existed prior thereto. Only such conditions as are recorded in examination reports are to be considered as noted. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1111 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (2016). A history of pre-service existence of conditions recorded at the time of examination does not constitute a notation of such conditions but will be considered together with all other material evidence in determinations as to inception. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(b)(1). In order to rebut the presumption of soundness, the government must show by clear and unmistakable evidence that (1) a Veteran's disability existed prior to service and (2) that the pre-existing disability was not aggravated during service. See Wagner v. Principi, 370 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Federal Circuit has made clear that the Secretary may rebut the second prong of the presumption of soundness by demonstrating with clear and unmistakable evidence, either that (1) there was no increase in disability during service, or (2) any increase in disability was due to the natural progression of the condition. Id. With respect to the underlying claim of service connection, in addition to the 2015 private assessment (which came in the form of a VA disability benefits questionnaire), the Veteran also submitted a VA clinical report dated in July 2011. In this report, a staff orthopedist noted that bilateral hip pain was present in June 2004, and that "given this new information," it was "clear" that the Veteran "did in fact suffer from...hip problems while in service." It was "more likely than not" that current hip disabilities "began and/or were exacerbated by his activities as a soldier." A May 2015 private opinion also describes the Veteran as experiencing bilateral hip arthritis as a result of trauma in service. This clinician also described the Veteran's left hip LCP as having been aggravated by the stresses of military service.

SO MUCH HERE TO THINK ABOUT... THESE ANSWERS HERE ALL DO POINT TO TELL THE TRUTH BUT ALSO BEWARE BECAUSE WE ALL DONT UNDERSTAND... MY STORY IS SIMILAR TO brokensoldier244th AND AS OF NOW I HAVE A HARD TIME ACCEPTING THOUGH I KNOW BY LAW IM A VET. SO AS OF THIS WRITING I TELL MY KIDS THAT GET EXCITED FOR FREE EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA BECAUSE THEY ARE DEPENDANTS THAT, YOU WILL BE DENIED BUT YOU WILL THEN NEED TO SUBMIT MORE INFO AND YOU WILL BE GRANTED.... MY POINT IS IT SUCKS ON DEPENDENTS THAT A VET IS A VET BUT FOR GETTING SERVICES WE NEED ALL FORMS OF ID.

thank you buck...

yes,,,, i agree with this 100... and thats when vets really should pay up for an IMO

i was asking for increase and effective date.... im confused about this extra schedule thing..its not on the web site but i understand that its something the judge has power to initiate and grant without vet asking.... what was ur hubby increased to 40% for ?

OK SO I HAD LIKE 5 ISSUES ON APPEAL AT THE BOARD IN D.C.. INCREASE RADIC BILAT EFFECTIVE DATE RADIC BILAT EFFECTIVE DATE OF LUMBAR INCREASE FROM 10 TO 40 SERVICE CONNECTION FOR BILAT HIPS... NOW THE BILAT HIPS SERVICE CONNECTION WAS GRANTED AS OF A BOARD DECISION WRITTEN AUG 2017 AND REST GOT REMANDED...NOW AUGUST 6 2018 THE REMANDS WHERE DECIDED... OK NO REAL CLUE BUT VA.GOV IS CONFUSING ME.... IT SAYS EFFECTIVE DATE DENIED INCREASE RADIC DENIED THEN IT SAYS ISSUES EFFECTIVE DATE GRANTED AND ... SO ANY ONE ELSE HAVE CONFUSING VETS.GOV STATUS AND OR IF ANYONE WAS ISSUED SCHEDULAR INCREASE DOES IT ACTUALLY STATE THOSE WORDS OR DOES IT SAY SOMETHING LIKE EFFECTIVE DATE DENIED AND THEN STATE EFFECTIVE DATE GRANTED??? The Board made a decision on your appeal The Board of Veterans’ Appeals sent you a decision on your appeal. Here’s an overview of the decision: Allowed The judge granted the following issue: Effective date, service connection Denied The judge denied the following issues: Increased rating, sciatic nerve neuritis Effective date, service connection Increased rating, lumbosacral or cervical strain THEN UNDER ISSUES IT STATES THIS.... Currently on appeal Remand Effective date Closed Granted Effective date, service connection Service connection, limitation of thigh motion (flexion) Denied Increased rating, sciatic nerve neuritis Increased rating, lumbosacral or cervical strain Need help? Call the Board of Veterans’ Appeals 1-800-923-8387

ILL MAKE MY POINT SIMPLE... BY LAW, THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. THEY CANNOT STATE THAT THEY SEEK HIGHEST RATING FOR VETS THEN SAY THEY ONLY SEEK DELUCA WITH A CLAIM OF INCREASE. CONGRESS RATIFIED LAW GOVERNING THE FACTS OF VETERANS ALWAYS ASKING FOR THE HIGHEST IS THE OBVIOUS SENSE OF UNDERSTANDING A CLAIM. SO THEN IF THE GOVERNMENT ALSO DECIDES THEIRS 2 STEPS AS IF 1. SERVICE CONNECTION AND 2 RATING....THEN DURING THE RATING PROCESS THE VET IS FOUND TO HAVE FUNCTIONAL LOSS THAT IS DEEMED TO BE THE HIGHER RATING.

NO PRE SERVICE PROBLEMS... THEN ENLISTMENT EXAM PASSES WITHOUT A PROBLEM..... THEN IN SERVICE PROBLEM..... THAT IN ITSELF CREATES A NEXUS.... DONT BE FOOLED THAT IT DOESNT.... BY DEFINITION IF YOU HAD ALL EXAMS PRIOR TO SERVICE THEN YOU HAVE A PROBLEM THAT IN IT SELF IS A NEXUS BETWEEN .... DONT GIVE UP AND FIGHT IT..... IF NO ONE CAN SAY ITS BEFORE THAN YOU HAVE WIN AT BVA AND CVAC. DONT LISTEN TO VSO JUST GO ALL THE WAY TO COURT. THE CVAC HAS STATED TIME AND TIME AGAIN THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO PROVE THAT NO PROBLEM WAS AGGRAVATED DURING SERVICE. NOT THAT IT WAS CREATED B4 OR AFTER BUT THAT THE GOV HAS TO PROVE NO INCREASE DURING.. THAT IN ITSELF IS THE NEXUS WHEN THEY BOTH AGREE THAT A PROBLEM EXISTS AND IT WAS EXISTING IN SERVICE.

where does my nod or new cue go... who do i send it to is my new problem. not even my vso can really give me an absolute ....

im only days away from deciding to hire attorney for CVAC level.. my bva decision came down August 14 2017 with a win and a remand.... the remand portion is soon to be decided within a few days... bronc your very right. i would never go to cvac without an attorney but i would go back to bva without.

EXACTLY.... I COME HERE THEN I CALL THEM BACK AND THEY ALWAYS LIKE,,, AH WELLL AHHH WELLL.,,,, YEAH I SEE YOUR POINT AND YEAH WE SHOULD FILE A NOD... THEN IM ALWAYS LIKE WOW,,, NO I WASNT SERVICE CONNECTED UNTIL JUDGE GRANTED THEN I WAS BUT JUDGE DECISION STIPPELATED THAT HE HAD NO JURISDICTION ON RATING BECAUSE IT WAS A NEW SC... THE RATER FAILED TO QUALIFY DELUCA WHEN LOOKING AT MY MEDICAL EVIDENCE THEN THEY GOT CAUGHT ON CUE... WHEN THEY RATED ME THEY WENT TO EFFECTIVE DATE OF REOPEND CLAIM BECAUSE ALL THE EVIDENCE WAS DURING THE APPEAL... THE CUE EVIDENCE WAS WHAT THEY USED AND THEY SAID SORRY WE MISSED THIS AND GAVE DATE OF MED EVAL. SO THEY ARE SAYING THAT DELUCA HAS NO FORCE IN RATING A NEWLY SERVICE CONNECTED CLAIM. IN MY OPINION ALL SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THIS BECAUSE IM SO VERY SURE THAT IT DOES.... DELUCA IS NOT JUST AND ONLY FOCUSED ON WHEN DECIDING AN INCREASE ITS WHEN DECIDING A RATING PERIOD.

SO ,,, ACCORDING TO MULTIPLE VSO'S AT THE BVA LEVEL ARE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE DELUCA ARGUMENT OF LOOKING TOWARD THE MEDICAL EVALUATION FOR FUNCTIONAL LOSS DOES NOT APPLY TO CLAIMS THAT ARE AWARDED WITH ORIGINAL GRANT OF SERVICE CONNECTION RATING CRITERIA... LIKE WHAT??????? ACCORDING TO THEM THE APPEALS MANAGEMENT CENTER AT THE BOARD OF VETERANS APPEALS IS NOT LOOKING FOR DELUCA IF YOUR AWARD IS THE FIRST AWARD OF SERVICE CONNECTION. THEY ONLY CONSIDER DELUCA WHEN ITS A GRANT FOR INCREASE.

so the strange thing here is,,,,, this claim was in appeal status going to 2009 date of reopened .... (well actually 2004 because of service treatment records but thats another matter later).... so when i won this part from bva judge granting service connection the judge signed his grant on august 15 2017... from there it went to AMC for them to determin the rating.... while its at the AMC for rating Determination it is my understanding that they should be giving the vet the highest of any rating possible... well they didnt. so i cue'd this. then when i won the cue they are saying that the increase happend while on appeal b4 decision but it they are only giving me a 2015 effective date per medical eval....THE MEDICAL EVAL INFO WAS IN FRONT OF RATER WHO KNEW THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORIGINAL SERVICE CONNECTION NEEDED PER JUDGE ORDER TO BE AS THE 2009 ORIGINAL DATE...... THEN I GET INFO SAYS THAT DELUCA DOESNT APPLY TO ORIGINAL CLAIMS .... ONLY APPLYS TO INCREASE CLAIMS...LIKE WHAT??????

if in world war 2 a civilian woman lost her life trying to help a soldier by working in an armament factory.? if in Vietnam a man gets off the plane and shot? if in iraq war never seen combat but died exploding ordinance? if an 17 year old goes to meps and signs up takes oath dies with recruiter in car wreck home? if an 19 year old joins during war time but breaks his spine in boot camp ? who is and who isnt a vet folks? not the definition cus the definition is they all are im looking for your true feelings.... i still feel completely they all are!

after reading i do agree that all 3 parts are needed. even within 1 year of service release. thanx guys.

got my update..... RO corrected there error and increased me... now on to get the correct E Date... thanks Hadit for all your Help once again... a win!!!

my question is do you still need Caluza when Veteran was diagnosed with an inservice hip strain then 6 months after released diagnosed with same inservice hip strain from C & P. the Cand P did not give an opinion on it though described how it happend in service just 6 months prior. why would you need part 3 of caluza?

i believe that i had to specifically send a request for the transcript and i got it within 3 months. i sent my request to the Appeals Management Center in Washington D.C.///// you had a video hearing so maybe you can send a Request to your local RO as well. but you should send to both.... as far as the advancement on docket im not to sure that transcripts are covered under that. like your advanced for the decision but not the transcripts. just my guess.

no. you WILL LL HAVE THE RAISE TO 90. they just work on an earlier effective date and while they work it you will still have the retro and the monthly