Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

VA Disability Claims Articles

Ask Your VA Claims Question | Current Forum Posts Search | Rules | View All Forums
VA Disability Articles | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users

paulcolrain

Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • Posts

    415
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by paulcolrain

  1. maybe the change is from direct service connection to secondary connection through your already service connected back..... if so that really not a change.
  2. simple answer is yes. any hardship if shown with proof and continues to be same will follow your claim.
  3. 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.
  4. so now that some have chimed in...ILL ADD SOME MORE BACK GROUND 1) first filed for SC 3 months after discharge. 2) the symptoms and complaints where in the filing but yet not diagnosed. 3) fist C+P exam Dr. acknowledges in a note the the rater that the EXAM should have a thorough neurology exam because of complained symptoms but that he couldnt find any thing so he believes that the exam wasnt needed. 4) i appealed 5) i complained about the symptoms but the C+P examiners never found anything. 6) VA LA JOLLA SAN DIEGO DR writes order for a xray then an MRI 7) once the MRI results come back then and only then was i diagnosed and the C + P Dr.s start to note the symptoms and pain. 8) this happend during the appeal. 9) i get an IMO/IME from Dr. aniese that states my degenerative disk disease began in Service. 10) i have letters from others put into record that these symptoms where there the whole time and i complained. 11) Before i was given the SC for Radiculopathy i was in a hearing with the rater (the NOD Rater) i stated and have the transcript that i have always complainded about this but that the Dr.s for some reason refuse to write it in the reports. the DRO said Back to me (recorded in the transcript) well if you have this we need to know the nerve root before we grant and i said well how can i get you the nerve root if an mri isnt done .. 12) poof mri is done and nerve root found and now here we are with the judge asking when this started
  5. In this regard, the Veteran has claimed CUE in that the RO erroneously adjudicated his claim as asthmatic bronchitis pre-existing service, when he alleges he has never been treated for, or diagnosed with, asthma. Quote Edit Options
  6. BUCK NOW THAT I HAVE READ YOUR HYPERTEXT LINK ID LIKE TO AS A QUESTION.... IS THIS WHAT POINT YOU TRYING TO MAKE>? 1. Develop and adjudicate the Veteran's claim of CUE in the April 1990, December 2002, and May 2006 rating decisions that denied service connection for asthmatic bronchitis, as alleged by the Veteran at his January 2012 hearing before the undersigned. He should be afforded notice as to the definition of CUE. In this regard, the Veteran has claimed CUE in that the RO erroneously adjudicated his claim as asthmatic bronchitis pre-existing service, when he alleges he has never been treated for, or diagnosed with, asthma.
  7. IM HOPING THIS IS A PRIVATE MESSAGE.....

    BUCK, I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU AND ANYOTHER LONG TIME POSTER ON HADIT MY CITATION NUMBER FROM BVA DECISION SEARDH SO THAT YOU CAN HELP OTHERS... ID ALSO LIKE TO SAY THAT YES I REMEMBER YOU FOR A LONG TIME CHIMING IN ON POSTS BACK IN THE DAY SO YES YOU ARE FAMILIAR... CHECK OUT THE HIPS PART OF THE APPEAL AND NO ONE BUT A FEW THOUGHT I WOULD GET BUT I DID....

    Citation Nr: 1732899	
    Decision Date: 08/14/17    Archive Date: 08/23/17
  8. YOUR AWSOME BUCK..... THANK YOU AND AS I TYPE MY MIND IS GOING.... THANK YOU!!!! AND BUCK BUT ALSO OTHERS....... YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE SEEN THIS IN THE REMAND I SAY THIS BECAUSE NO ONE MENTIONED.....AND IF ANY ONE IS FAMILIAR WITH THE ABSOLUTE LAW OF 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c) 4. Following the above-directed development, re-adjudicate the Veteran's claims for an increase and earlier effective dates. The RO's attention is called to the potential applicability of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c). If the claims remain denied, issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and forward the claims to the Board for adjudication.
  9. i understand and i am a very big addvicate of the imo i just as im sure many vets are frustrated with the fact that over the years its becomeing more and more apparent that we NEED A PAID FOR IMO INSTEAD OF RELYING ON VA... THIS IS NOT WHAT THE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED FOR BUT IT IS WHAT HAS BEEN THE ANSWER. ITS UNFORTUNATE AND WE ALL WISH THERE WAS SOMETHING IN OUR RECORDS THAT COULD SKIP THIS. MOST IMO'S USE WHAT IS ALREADY IN THE RECORD AND THEN JUST MAKE A DIFFERENT STATEMENT BUT THEN THE VA IS ALLOWED TO SAY THAT THIS IS NEW EVIDENCE.... POINT IS ITS NOT NEW JUST A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION REGARDING THE SAME EVIDENCE BUT THIS LEGALLY STOPS THE EED.
  10. porgee, i know your question is to Tbird but id like to chime in. porgee all i can suggest is that you formulate your specific Questions in a Word Doc first then copy paste into the free flow question handler from page. you might want to put that your not asking for more questions.. although most of the big responders here are probably asking questions for you to evaluate and for you to re think so that you get the award you want.. but again if your specific in your post what your looking for and that you dont want another question then maybe it will help???? just a thought.
  11. this is directly below the last screen shot and note still nothing pertinent to a new vet interest. PLEASE NOTE THAT IM POSTING THIS AFTER SAYING ABOUT CHANGES THEN I WENT TO A NON SUBSCRIBER GOOGLE SEARCH AND THIS IS WHAT HAPPEN.
  12. as a new user and not logged in this is what they see when they come to hadit.com. please note that everything you see is actually a link of an ad not the site info including hot topics section. and when you hover over the top words on top of page they disappear so that a vid commercial can play.
  13. Regarding the Earlier Effective Date,, the Dr in his C+P report states: the medical records support that pain in the back have been present since 2005. Then goes on to say that the onset of Radicular Symptoms is first Reported in 2011 Despite this though radicular Symptoms can have a waxing and waning course and it is possible that the other examinations prior to 2011 occurred when the symptoms where minimal and hence not reported. Then the Dr opines that there is no objective evidence in the record that Radiculopathy was present until 2011…… But the judge clearly states that the Dr should note that lack of evidence is not to be used in the opinion… Also there is symptoms reported of radiculopathy by me and by a nurses Documentation and testimony though im not sure why the Dr didn’t see or use this.
  14. Tbird,,,,, it was never my intention to say that you knew or tried to create click bait. i am almost very sure you didnt have any plan in that and it was the ad not the site. i Also want to commend you on some very notable changes. the site looks a lot better and the text colors are now different. congrats for your hard work in helping vets through your site.
  15. i also understand that the SSOC has a 2/24/18 date but the stamping on the front page and the mailing date was 3/28/18....... and there is symptoms stated within the record but was not read by Dr. read close when Dr states that waxing and waining and could be there but no Objective evidence was found...... Judge states to remember that the lack of evidence should not be used as the opinion.
  16. please note that i havnt yet shown what the SSOC states about the increase..... this post was for any answers to the Earlier effective date. Judge states that it is Deemed to have been date of claim but wants Dr. to prove ???? please Read what Dr says and what judge says
  17. as a long time user i am able to search through all the content and eventually find what i want. again, i was just posting this Question as looking at it for new vets who do a simple google search. i would suggest that the Text color should be made different that is for this site only because it is getting jumbled between what the ads are saying and the color of the text they use is so very similar the ads become Click Bate and i have the feeling that is very well known. the ability to decipher between ads and the page content is most important to new users. if all the ads where forced to stay to the side of the page content which is a web designers option. then all this would be clearer to new users and continuing vets that have a hard time with memory balance. id like to also add that I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH A VETERANS WEBSITE EARNING A FEW BUCKS TO MAINTAIN SITE OR EVEN TO BUY SOME GAS FOR MEETINGS LIKE WHY NOT...I GOT NO ISSUES ABOUT THE MONEY JUST THE PLACEMENT OF ADS AND THAT THEY BECAME CLUTTERED AND CLICK BATE.
  18. this is what the judge put in remand back to AOJ: REMAND The severity of the Veteran's bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy has not been recently evaluated, and as that is the prime concern for claims in an increase in rating, a new examination is necessary. Also, outstanding records, to include any records held in federal custody, are to be obtained. Other directives are as below. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: (Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). Expedited handling is requested.) 1. Obtain all outstanding VA treatment reports for the Veteran and associate copies with the claims file. In addition to all treatment records, vocational rehabilitation records, if present, must be obtained and associated with the claims file. In addition, contact the Social Security Administration (SSA) and determine as to if a claim for disability benefits has been filed with that agency. If SSA records do exist, obtain copies and associate them with the claims file. 2. As the Veteran has applied for disability benefits administered by the State of California, contact the appropriate state agency and obtain any records associated with a disability determination by that agency. If no records are found to exist after an exhaustive search, so annotate the claims file. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a comprehensive neurological examination of the bilateral lower extremities to determine the severity and, if possible, the onset date, of current bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy. The examiner's attention is called to the following: *The examiner should determine current neurological deficits associated with service-connected bilateral radiculopathy in the lower extremities. Impairments with respect to strength, muscle tone, and propulsion should be specifically described. *Range of motion testing of the lower extremities should occur, and if radiculopathy is productive of impairment, the degree to which such decrease in motion exists should be reported. *The Veteran is now in receipt of service-connected compensation benefits for his bilateral hips. VA clinical records, dating to 2011, note that radiculopathy AND hip disablement exist as comorbid conditions. *The Veteran has credibly reported pain in the hip and lower extremity regions for many years; however, there is some conflict in the record as to when radiculopathy had an onset. Specifically, a February 2011 VA clinical report listed the radiation of pain from the lower back into the lower extremities, and a later November 2011 examination report failed to diagnose radiculopathy (earlier March and October 2010 physical examinations also do not indicate the presence of radiculopathy). Nonetheless, the Veteran has credibly reported pain in the lower extremities for many years, and, to the extent possible, the degree of pain associated with radiculopathy and with service-connected hip arthritis should be described. *Specifically, it is noted that the claim for entitlement to service connection for radiculopathy has been deemed to originate in September 2004 (date of claim). To the extent it is medically possible, the neurologist is asked to note the Veteran's complaints of pain, in addition to the conflicting medical evidence, and offer an opinion as to whether bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy has been present since the date of claim in 2004. If not, the approximate date of onset should be expressly described. ALL CONCLUSIONS MUST BE SUPPORTED BY APPROPRIATE MEDICAL EXPLANATION. THE LACK OF DOCUMENTATION IN CONTEMPORANEOUS MEDICAL RECORDS IS NOT, IN ITSELF, A SUFFICIENT BASIS ON WHICH TO REST AN OPINION. 4. Following the above-directed development, re-adjudicate the Veteran's claims for an increase and earlier effective dates. The RO's attention is called to the potential applicability of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c). If the claims remain denied, issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and forward the claims to the Board for adjudication. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West 2014). this is what the SSOC STATES: beneath is the link to the SSOC please click 3152
  19. Did you ever formally file for TDIU? I know that is an odd question, because they don't award TDIU without a claim for it- but something is wrong here--- this was my question and point... just because va aware doesnt mean an application was put in...and didnt they change the law for infered iu claims ????
  20. you all are making me laugh.. thank you..... but for a real response , yes i probably need to look into my browser to slow things down ... though we should all be concerned with NEW vets not sure how to navigate the site and be turned off ... i say this only cus this site is REALLY AWSOME FOR VETS!!!!. all i was concerned for was new vets knowing how to get to the meat they looking for .... for instance when i asked this question then tried to find responses it really took me 2 hours to find this page so that i could respond. as a new vet looking for things would they bother?
  21. MY ANSWER IS KINDA IN A QUESTION. PLEASE DONT BE FRUSTRATED YOU STATE THAT THE S.A REASONABLY RISES ANSWER!!!!!! SO IM GOING TO REMIND YOU THAT AS VETS WE ALWAYS LOOK AT THINGS TO BE OBJECTIVE AND DONT REALLY RECOGNIZE THAT THEY MIGHT BE SUBJECTIVE..... WITH THAT BEING SAID, REVIEW AGAIN WHAT YOU THINK IS SOLID THEN FILE NOD TO GET RESPONSE.... THIS WAY YOU HAVE A DIRECTION.... VA RESPONSES TO NOD ARE SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE DIRECTION OF HOW TO DISPROVE THERE FINDING. RE LOOK WITH FRESH EYES CUS CVAC WILL NOT SIDE ON SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE ALONE. ( AND FORGIVE ME IF I MISSED OTHER PARTS BUT VA WILL NEVER PAY YOU FOR ANYTHING YOU NEVER APPLIED FOR EVEN IF YOU HAVE PROOF IT EXISTED ) I READ YOUR GRANT AND PLEASE LOOK AT ISSUES.... BECAUSE YOU ONLY HAVE 3 AND NONE STATE IU????
  22. tresononna, pardon me for frustration but ,,,,, why didnt you file for advancement???????????????? my appeal and yours where on here going together with same date, mine is 2015 as well..... in june of 2017 i filed for advancement, in august 18 2017 i got a decision and a remand on my BVA appeal. oct 1 i had 90K in bank..... please file for hardship and advancement.... PLEASE!!!!!!!
  23. ive used this site for many years and you all have championed the cause for VETS. i applaud you and your service to vets...... as a returning user i see that your site is inundated with ads. your site has become increasingly hard to use over the years do to your constant change. please remember this site was for vets to learn not spend. i understand that we all like to make money but your site is becoming saturated people.
  24. anyone else having trouble logging onto ebenes? mine gets me to homepage then i click log on and it binds up....2 days now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use