paulcolrain

ill try to clear it up. yes i received a grant of service connection and that award was decided and rated by the Appeals Management Center in D.C at the bva. so from that decision i sent info from my C & P exam that the rater said they used but then i seen that they didnt read the functional loss page and the repeated time page. so this created a claim for increase. then they kick it out .. then the SDRO calls me to tell me that the jurisdiction was wrong and its actually needing to go to the Appeals Management Center in D.C who was the original rater.. then says hes calling it an administration request for correction then uses the words cue then uses the words well a request for recon.. ok thats at the level of the SDRO now i also have a current remand at the bva so i have a VSO in the building there. he emailed me and said i needed to pull my request for reconsideration administration correction because those type of things have only been won 5 times out of 30 years . and wants me to reapply as a notice of disagreement ... now ill also add that i read some things on here and this is a typical sham from VSOs .. quoting his email words to me "And if you want to challenge the ratings from August 2017 with any hope of success the request for reconsideration must be withdrawn and a Notice of disagreement filed by August 14, 2018. The standards for reconsideration are so high that we only know of five at the Board level in the last 30 years. " so did i clean this up for you guys?

please help soon friends because,,, I NEED TO CALL MY VSO IN DC 2MRW BECAUSE HE JUST EMAILED ME SAYING THAT IF I WANT TO WIN A RECONSIDERATION CUE ABOUT A MISTAKE AT THE LEVEL OF THE AMC BVA LEVEL IM GONNA BE UP THE CREEK ONLY BECAUSE 5 OUT OF THE PAST 30 YEARS HAS BEEN GRANTED. SOME BACK DROP ON THIS IS,,, MY APPEAL WAS GRANTED BY THE AMC IN DC AND I FILED FOR AN INCREASE AT THE RO.... WELL RO CALLS ME AND SAYS ITS THE WRONG JURISDICTION AND THAT HE IS LOOKING IT OVER AND AGREES WITH ME ON WHAT THEY MISSED IN THE RANGE OF MOTION FOR FUNCTIONAL LOSS ... SO HE SAYS HES SENDING IT TO THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE AMC IN DC AS A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION AND AS WE ALL KNOW THAT IS ACTUALLY CALLED A CUE. SO IM STUCK ON WHAT TO DO NOW PLEASE HELP AS I NEED TO CALL THEM 2MRW WITH AN ANSWER. this is what DBQ states for abduction this is what the decision letter said and why this is cue?????

just a question that pops to mind from the answers.. what if your 100% rated but none of your conditions are stated p & t ??? also what if you get tdiu instead of regular ratings way and its only been a few years ?

IF YOU CAN PLEASE LIKE THIS POST SO THAT I KNOW IM NOT ALONE...... ITS MY BELIEF THAT IF EACH AND EVERY VETERAN GETS A VA CASE WORKER JUST LIKE THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN GIVES THENNN,,,, WE AS VETS WOULD ALWAYS KNOW WHATS GOING ON AND HAVE A PHONE NUMBER TO 1 PERSON AND BE ABLE TO SUBMIT NEW EVIDENCE TO 1 PERSON JUST LIKE THE CLAIMANTS OF SS. WE COULD STILL USE VSO'S TO FIND OUT WHAT BENEFITS WE ARE ALL ENTITLED TO AND ARGUE FOR BUT,,,,,,, WE WOULD NOW HAVE A SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT WITHIN THE VA SYSTEM WORKING ON OUR CLAIMS AND CASE WHO WORKS FOR VA AS THE CASE MANAGER FOR US THE INDIVIDUAL. PLEASE VOTE THIS AND LIKE IF YOU AGREE...

i agree bronc... this is sooo broken. my mom gets SSDI and she has a Government employee working for SS that sends her letters and creates problems....well point is ,, they give her explanations of things and an ext to a phone # to call them... 100% of the time she is allowed to be told EXACTLY WHATS GOING ON WITH HER FEDERAL BENEFITS. THEN IF SHE WANTS SHE IS ALLOWED TO SEND HER DIRECT PERSON DOCUMENTS TO FIX ISSUES. WITH VETS WE GET VSO's AND THE OBVIOUS PROBLEM IS THEY DO NOT WORK AT THE VA.... WHY CANT VETERANS HAVE THE SAME PROCESS AS SS SYSTEM HAS!

i get that that bronc. though the Question that i posed was why did they only grant 10% for the initial rating when the flare ups PER DBQ are Clearly stating that 20% should be granted. in other words,,, the rater here failed to take deluca into consideration per evidence of DBQ

i get that that bronc. though the Question that i posed was why did they only grant 10% for the initial rating when the flare ups PER DBQ are Clearly stating that 20% should be granted. in other words,,, the rater here failed to take deluca into consideration per evidence of DBQ

hmm.. i tried from 3 different computers now and using google. when i double click on it brings up image view and im able to adjust the zoom

vince not sure if your computer same but when i double click both images they get larger and clearer

im gonna take a wild guess and assume your not already rated for lumbar. then im gonna JUST GUESS that yes it looks similar to mine and you will get Sc for lumbar at least 10% and at least 10% for radicilurapathy. But the Dr opine that less likely for a but likely for b..... But please look at when the DR states this " a. After a review of the veteran's STR's his complaints of back pain during his military service consisted of an upper thoracic strain and no complaints of low back pain. Therefore it would be less likely than not that this veteran's chronic LS condition of degenerative disc disease with right lower extremity radiculopathy is directly related to his complaints of back pain during his military service. b. The veteran's service connected left foot condition with CRPS has resulted in a chronically altered gait as well as multiple falls that have affected his back. Therefore it would be at least as likely as not that this veteran's current lumbosacral spine condition of degenerative disc disease with right lower extremity radiculopathy is secondary to his service connected left foot condition with CRPS.

according to 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40 and 4.45 i believe i should be increased from 10% to 20% please look at these codes then look at the DBQ from Dr i provided you will see the flare up measurements. Code 5252: If the hip is limited in how far forward (flexion) it can move the leg, then it is rated under this code. If it cannot move the leg more than 10°, it is rated 40%. If it cannot raise the leg more than 20°, it is rated 30%. No more than 30° is rated 20%, and no more than 45° is rated 10%. Code 5253: All other limitations of hip motion are rated under this code. If the hip cannot swing the leg out to the side (abduction) more than 10°, it is rated 20%. If it cannot move the leg inward across the other leg (adduction), it is rated 10%. If it cannot rotate the leg outward (toes point off to the sides) more than 15°, then it is rated 10%

i agree with bronco. the only thing i would add is that make sure you describe in each what it is and why your applying new and describe a brief note on each so that the raters know what the other raters are doing or this will end up taking a long time .

FIRST THING TREY,, CONGRATS I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN WAITING AND NOW AT LEAST YOU KNOW ITS FINALLY WITH THE JUDGE. AS FAR AS TIME,,, MINE TOOK LESS THAN 3 MONTHS LIKE 2 I THINK MINE WENT TO JUDGE ON VETS.GOV FIRST WEEK OF JUNE AND MIDDLE OF AUGUST DECISION WAS MADE. WELL HALF DECISION OTHER HALF WAS REMANDED AND IM STILL WAITING

just did a google search for hadit.com and got to the site as a newbie........ALL I CAN SAY IS CONGRATS. YOU DID IT!!!! I THINK IT LOOKS GREAT AND SLEEK. GREAT JOB

ALL FIXED!!!!!! BACK ON TRACK THANKS TO THE SAN DIEGO REGIONAL OFFICE TEAM. GREATFUL TO THEM FOR SEEING THE ISSUE AND RECTIFYING IT SO QUICKLY.

THANK YOU T .

T, the site is great for those who are logged in and keep bookmarks and all that jazz. it is easy to use once understanding it.... and again i must add that making some money on ads is absolutely fine in my opinion. maybe a BIG BLOCK that states New Visitors Click here..... or NEW Vets CLick here. im running out of suggestions because i feel that this post has become personal and it WASNT MENT TO AT ALL. I SWEAR ALL I WANTED TO DO WITH THIS POST WAS TO POINT OUT NEW VETS OR PEOPLE LIKE MOTHERS OF VETS THAT DONT KNOW HOW TO USE SITE THE BEST.

ill also add that on the decision letter i recieved in August of 2017 does state " this is to be considered a full grand of benefits and this issue on appeal is now final and closed" so then i ask for increase and im told its still pending... FOLKS ITS NOT STILL PENDING. I ALSO WANT TO ADD TO ALL NEWBIES THAT WONDER WHY STRANGE THINGS HAPPEN ON EBENE & VET.GOV...... PLEASE DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND CALL 800-827-1000 IMMEDIATELY!!!! DO NOT LISTEN TO POSTS THAT STATE EBENE'S IS WRONG JUST WAIT FOR A LETTER...NO NO NO.... CALL AND STATE YOUR CONCERN ... YOU WILL GET ANSWERS NOW IN 2018

hoping i can answer both your questions in one answer. but you will have more questions because i ahure do. i do not have an un adjudicated appeal for the hips. the hips where decided and i received a grant of service connection for them.

point is,,,, the top is the only connection really and if you move your mouse around certain things they seem to dispersal. my point is and will remain,,, as a new vet how do i get in with your site instead of being inundated with ads???????

I DONT WANT TO REPORT THIS BUT I THINK YOU MISSED THE BAR. i tried so hard to set your bar low but..... i started this string by asking you to view your site as a new VET. then see how they would see the sight. before i say more id like it if you somehow got someone computer thats never been to your site then go google hadit.com and then try to figure out what it is that you do on your site that we all love.

ok so this letter states, do to your current ongoing appeal issues it has been determined that your claim for increase is premature. we will not be able to to adjudicate this claim until the appeal has been finished. ok seems like it would make sense. BUT, the claimed issues are for an increase. the increase is do to the BVA issuing a grant of service connection for then stated that is far as they can go they can not rate. the increase is do to the fact that the RO granted only 10% and i believe it should be higher as of august 2017 but gave me EED of 2009. they recieved my claim for increase in march of 2018 then sent me to a C + P this month. then they send this letter saying its premature. ? how is it premature when these issues are NOT under appeal? the only issues under appeal are for EED of the back and EED of the radiculopathy and increase of the radiculopathy. now, radiculopathy is from the lumbar nerve NOT from the hips. any Thoughts here? they just stopped my claim and blamed it on a non issue!

according to 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40 and 4.45 i believe i should be increased from 10% to 20% please look at these codes then look at the DBQ from Dr i provided you will see the flare up measurements. Code 5252: If the hip is limited in how far forward (flexion) it can move the leg, then it is rated under this code. If it cannot move the leg more than 10°, it is rated 40%. If it cannot raise the leg more than 20°, it is rated 30%. No more than 30° is rated 20%, and no more than 45° is rated 10%. Code 5253: All other limitations of hip motion are rated under this code. If the hip cannot swing the leg out to the side (abduction) more than 10°, it is rated 20%. If it cannot move the leg inward across the other leg (adduction), it is rated 10%. If it cannot rotate the leg outward (toes point off to the sides) more than 15°, then it is rated 10% DBQ+PG7.pdf this is the page that shows flare ups decrease motion ... the other is page for decreased motion for repeted use over time. please note that the 3 repeated uses was stated no. but these others state yes.