pwrslm

Valid point. In the past, the only thing that I found VSO's were good for is if I needed to find out what was hanging up in a decision because the VA will not allow the Veteran access to his own EFile like they do VSO's. Vet acting pro se----------> no contact, no communication either way VSO acting for the Vet----------> full contact with RO, two way communication exist So the Vet is at a substantial disadvantage, yet the VA is prohibited from requiring the use of a VSO because it is a "friendly" and non-adversarial process...go figure. IMO RO's should be embedded into the VHA PACT. EVERY PACT should have a VBA rep, and all C&P exams should be conducted at the PACT instead of with medical "professionals" that never met the vet before the exam. With the RO, the PCP, and the vet sitting down face to face to come to agreements on claim issues would likely reduce appeals dramatically.

No-not all of it. I got that link from here on Hadit, but they did eliminate the VA's duty to give notice and opportunity for a VSO to identify any ERRORS before final decisions are made. this is still there: I.i.2.A.4.a. General Scope of a Representative’s Authority A representative is appointed, in the wording of the VA Form 21-22 and VA Form 21-22a, to “prepare, present, and prosecute” a claim. To discharge those duties, an appointed representative explicitly or implicitly has the authority to review the claimant’s records, subject to limitations specified in the VA Form 21-22 or VA Form 21-22a, and/or by law submit information, evidence, and argument on behalf of the claimant, to include eliciting witness testimony at a hearing authorize administrative changes on behalf of the claimant related to a claim such as changing a claimant’s address in VA records, establishing a direct deposit account, or changing a direct deposit account, subject to existing VA procedures coordinate with VA on development matters such as the scheduling of a hearing or an examination prepare and submit forms and other procedural documents on behalf of the claimant, and withdraw a claim at any stage of adjudication. Important: This list is illustrative and not exclusive and a duly appointed representative also has the rights or authority to perform any other functions specified elsewhere in the M21-1.

Have you contacted the local VR&E office on this? They are the ones who will make these decisions. The new wife question is a good question for them to answer, and I am fairly certain that your friends daughter should be applying for college.

They deposited my back pay before I knew of the decision. Once it closes, they VA transmits the data to the Treasury Dept and the Treasury will respond w/in 24 hours usually. If you retired and receive retirement, or a separation payment, it is different. Here is info on separation pay if that applies to you, and here is info on retirement.

The part about "clear and unmistakable evidence" is a high hurdle for the VA to overcome. They literally have to have proof that a condition pre-existed to do so. I had an injury in Basic. The Dr that saw me said that "I" said it was an old football injury. (Funny though, I never played football!!!). I had to go to the High School where I dropped out (9th grade) and got the records showing the lack of any sports activity. If I had not done that, the VA likely would have denied my claim. The Presumption of Soundness is US Code, which is the Law, unlike 38 CFR, which is regulation that the VA uses to interpret and enforce the law.

Gratz! The whole process is an education. Welcome to the club!!

You can also include any medical treatise you can find. Google scholar, NIH and Medscape (to name a few) are good places to start. College libraries have access to national journals as well as medical teachings on many subjects. If you look for etiologies of knee and hip problems, you probably will find what you need. Mayo Clinic has a good run down on causes, which is essential to document the link between active duty and current conditions. Risk factors A number of factors can increase your risk of having knee problems, including: Excess weight. Being overweight or obese increases stress on your knee joints, even during ordinary activities such as walking or going up and down stairs. It also puts you at increased risk of osteoarthritis by accelerating the breakdown of joint cartilage. Lack of muscle flexibility or strength. A lack of strength and flexibility can increase the risk of knee injuries. Strong muscles help stabilize and protect your joints, and muscle flexibility can help you achieve full range of motion. Certain sports or occupations. Some sports put greater stress on your knees than do others. Alpine skiing with its rigid ski boots and potential for falls, basketball's jumps and pivots, and the repeated pounding your knees take when you run or jog all increase your risk of knee injury. Jobs that require repetitive stress on the knees such as construction or farming also can increase your risk. Previous injury. Having a previous knee injury makes it more likely that you'll injure your knee again. Complications Not all knee pain is serious. But some knee injuries and medical conditions, such as osteoarthritis, can lead to increasing pain, joint damage and disability if left untreated. And having a knee injury — even a minor one — makes it more likely that you'll have similar injuries in the future.

" if any of these claims are found to be service connected, " When you have a rating decision, then you will know. At this point it is all speculation. BrokenSoldier gave you the gist of the issue, in that new and relevant evidence is presented based on the original decision. That evidence was or should have been present in your records, and the RO had the duty to gather those records. Because the records were in the possession of the US Govt at the time of the original decision, but not applied to the facts in your original claim, you should win the original effective date. The VA's/governments error goes in your favor. You have taken a big step toward this point by getting approved to reopen the issue in your supplementary claim. Broncovet is outlining the fight if the VARO denies your effective date. Remember this is all dependent upon if these claims are found to be SC. If your new evidence puts the question in equipoise (50/50), you win. Also, never underestimate the value of a lay statement. It can mean the difference of 10% and 0% for each condition (x 7) because you are competent to describe the symptoms of pain. If they approve SC it "should" be from the day your ETS became effective.

I said this a long time ago. The more of us who make IG complaints on VA errors, the more likely that the problems will be taken seriously. The squeaky wheel will get the grease, just like a boatload of complaints to the IG will get their attention. The IG is responsible for investigating complaints when the VA fails to follow the M21/CFR and USC. Much like the investigation the IG did in 2018 about unnecessary C&P exams that would have cost the US Taxpayer 10 million over 5 years, the accumulation of mistakes probably cost tax payers far more than that. The inspector general (IG) is an independent, non-partisan organization established within each executive branch agency (including the VBA and VGA) assigned to audit the agency’s operation in order to discover and investigate cases of misconduct, waste, fraud and other abuse of government procedures occurring within the agency. The OIG ensures that the agency's operations are in compliance with the laws and general established policies of the government. The IG is a tool and we should use that tool.

https://www.benefits.va.gov/WARMS/docs/admin21/m21_1/mr/part1/ch03/M21-1I_3_SecB.docx Info on VSO's connecting w/VARO VSO's are able to review the decision and point out errors before it becomes final. This includes mistakes that would be considered CUE like the RO's failure to recognize evidence and apply its weight in the decision (example: if there were 3 visits to sickcall for xyz which proves the condition existed and was treated for in active duty, yet the decision would say there was no evidence without correction). EVERY CLAIMANT SHOULD HAVE THIS RIGHT it should not be exclusively for VSO's... of special interest: (page 14 of 16) Is the rating the first decision being completed under the EP (i.e. EP has not been continued at authorization after a prior decision)? · If yes, allow the VSO time to review the rating decision under the time limit established in M21-1, Part I, 3.B.3.b. · If no, - notify the VSO (via phone, e-mail, or in-person communication) that a subsequent rating decision has been made and is available for review in the eFolder - document telephone or in-person communication on VA Form 27-0820, Report of Contact, and - allow the VSO time to review the rating decision under the time limit established in M21-1, Part I, 3.B.3.b. Note: Place a copy of the VSO notification and any additional correspondence in the eFolder. Resolve any mistakes noted or clarifications requested by the VSO. Notes: · Disagreements with a decision should be pursued through the appellate process. · The VSO will request clarifications from the person designated by local management to resolve the issue. If the review results in · no change to the rating decision, proceed to Step 8. · modifications to the rating decision, regardless of whether or not the new rating is related to the VSO’s concerns, repeat the prior steps.

The VA Form 21-22a states: "By appointing the attorney or agent below, I give permission for other attorneys/agents and support staff within the same law firm/organization to have access to my file (to include information under Section 7332, Title 38, U.S.C.*) on behalf of my representation" The VSO has a blanket permission to access your file. The new guys on your case need to be trained because they are within the same organization (VSO) as the originally appointed individual. I changed from Legion to DVA and it took 3 months. Then I went to PVA and it took 2 weeks. The agent I was dealing with spoke to me every Friday and that probably had a strong effect on how long it took. Until the VA gets a validation/acceptance from the VSO, it remains pending. If the VSO does not take action, it never goes into effect. Found that out when the DAV failed to respond until I called their offices about a dozen time complaining (frustration of purpose).

True. How many pro se cases do they see though. I cannot imagine that they are seeing a lot of them. Pro se claims to CAVC is a situation where you have one person that does one claim, and never seen again. Lawyers on the other hand are familiar with the process, and can get to know the clerks by name because they deal with them on a regular basis. Big advantage once you get to know the ropes. And you know from experience that those protocol for pro se are more or less ignored unless you push it. What the VA does -vs- what the VA is supposed to do is the underlying problem a lot of the time. CAVC is typically a lawyers playground.

As long as it would be correctly noted that said "might" have been shot at, what is the problem? You were Special Forces so were you ever in combat. That is the underlying issue no? If you were ever in combat or got hazard pay then regardless of the chopper issue, the evaluator is right.

Looking into #1 above, I do not see where this is addressed that the Veteran remarries after the CH35 benefits have been provided. Your original spouse used a benefit for CH35, which the VA limits to 36 or 48 months. You probably should just apply. All they can do is say no, or approve the claim. You lose nothing. Same basic info on #2, file a claim. The dependent has 10 years to complete the education benefit. As long as the veteran is 100% P&T, even in prison, the DEA should persist for dependents. CH31 benefits do persist in prison as well. The dependent should have no problem getting CH35. SEE THIS

If your lawyer did this it would have taken days instead of weeks. The fact that your are pro se is probably why you have some of these issues. Lawyers have an easier time because they have protocol they follow that the clerks are used too.

Dr Bash and Ellis are not so special. Lawyers have Doctors like them on retainer for accidents where they take the Insurance Companies to court to sue for clients injuries. That industry is huge! The specialists like Bash and Ellis literally show up in court and give testimony if it is necessary. The boiler plate reports are basic formats that cover specific terms and cover a legal necessity most of the time. They complete the opinion portions with acceptable medical treatise and specifics about your condition in these opinions. They probably have assistants that they pay to do research as well so they can provide a solid foundation for their opinions. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Bash and Ellis specialize in VA Claims.

Start at your local VA Primary Care Team. Talk to your PCP, see if s/he will help you document the current condition. Ask if they will enter an opinion into your medical record as to the etiology of the condition. Etiology in medical records is an assignment of a cause, an origin, or reason for the medical condition. If they are willing to help, and you can show them how an in service condition is linked to your current condition, then you are over a big hump. This is the cheapest route. You can also ask your own non-VA caretaker to do the same if you do not use the VAMC. Alternatively, if they refuse like mine did...get on the phone. Call non-VA medical offices and ask them if they will do an independent medical opinion and/or exam for you, and what would they charge. I spent 2 days and found a orthopedic spine surgeon who wrote an IMO for me for $250. It was well worth it and landed my first claim. First time out the door it landed me with 60%. Your motivation is the key to it all. to correct this, the $250 I paid included an exam, so the IMO was an IME as well.

You should still be able to submit new evidence into the record when you are remand. The VA is gathering new evidence in these exams as well. A lay statement can describe the symptoms that you experience. It must be taken into account, and if they think you are not telling the truth, they must provide evidence giving a reason and basis for them to think that. You cannot provide a medical diagnosis (unless you are properly a medical professional). But you can give direct testimony in a lay statement of what you have experienced. Upload the statement on vets.gov, and then mail it in.

The CUE is a distinct claim. "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that "a veteran's assertion of a particular clear and unmistakable error by the RO constitutes a distinct claim."" I would not think that the separate claim that included TDIU and MDD would be part of a CUE claim. Once the CUE is decided, it cannot be brought again, (unless you appeal the case to CAVC/SCOTUS). I searched the BVA for "deemed denial" with zero results. CAVC : A claim for benefits, whether formal or informal, remains pending until it is finally adjudicated. Adams v. Shinseki, 568 F.3d 956, 960 (Fed.Cir.2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.160(c). A claim will also remain pending if the VA failed to notify a veteran of the denial of his claim. Cook v. Principi, 318 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed.Cir.2002) (en banc). It is established, however, that in certain circumstances, under the implicit denial rule, “a claim for benefits will be deemed to have been denied, and thus finally adjudicated, even if the [VA] did not expressly address that claim in its decision.” Adams, 568 F.3d at 961. I would think that if a claim was made, and the issue of TDIU and MDD were raised in the claim along with hearing loss, that the VA would be bound to notify you of any adverse action IAW 3.103 cited above. Exception for deemed denial would need be closely related, like a case of hearing loss and tinnitus. The ruling on hearing loss could be denied and the tinnitus deemed denied. Hearing and TDIU/MDD would not likely be associated like that IMO. MDD is a depressive/MH issue, while hearing loss would be a separate and distinct issue IMO. Hearing loss and TBI could be closely related though.

Every month.

" but shall not be construed as limiting VA's authority to request reexaminations, or periods of hospital observation, at any time in order to ensure that a disability is accurately rated." Sounds like the cat is let out of the bag. The VA can require exams, but the authority is not arbitrary or capricious. This has to have a reason and basis just like everything else. Under normal day to day activity, requesting reexam's for every 65 y/o for "assurance" would not fly to well. The idea of this preservation of authority appears to be in the event of suspected error, or fraud, which has netted the VA many victories. People are in prison, and ordered to pay restitution of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, due to undeserved benefits. (Example of recent news was a guy claimed he was blind, only to be found driving a car with a renewed drivers license...he is in jail.) As with everything, there will be an exception for cause. The CFR states in specific terms why a reexam can be ordered under normal circumstances. The M21 backs that up with specific language. Over 55 exams are done, but they are rare, and they have a reason and basis which is required to be noted in the veterans file. There is always grey language, but they also must comply with the CFR as written.

If you PM Teresa and ask her, she can send you info that you can use to set up an automatic payment from your bank to Hadit.com. I set this up because I hate PayPal, so she gets a monthly check from me.

The addendum in the record is new evidence. Should maybe go as supplemental claim and is faster than an appeal. If the diary is not posted in your VA Medical Records, you should ask them to do that as well, or if not, include it in your claim as evidence (if you have not done that already). The addition of a non-VA IMO on this issue would put this over the top in more ways than one. Try Dr. Bash. He might cost 1500 for an IMO, but the return would be tenfold.

Strong point. Idea: wait until this whole thing is over, then document the C&P's and file a complaint with the VAOIG based on the 2018 IG report on wasted tax dollars. May not end the confusion caused when VA tells you that you requested increased in all your ratings (which you did not do in an A&A claim), because the confusion comes directly from a lie. Sometimes you have to bite the bullet first to get the results. Either way you go, the VA should never present these C&P exams as something the Vet requested when in fact the Vet never did. Without specific cause backed by regulation/CFR and/or US Code, they should not go fishing like this without proper notification. The term "reasons and basis" come to mind here, because the VA is not required to have any for this type of activity (which already resulted in millions of wasted tax dollars from unnecessary C&P examinations, as indicated by the IG already).

This is correct. Only special reasons would allow re-exams over 55. When I hit this wall, M21-1 further develops the rules by noting the unusual circumstances. When I hit this wall, I had just received my C-File and noted that there was nothing in the special notations in my file. They cancelled the exam and I never heard about it again. IAW 38 CFR § 3.327 - Reexaminations ... (2) No periodic future examinations will be requested. In service-connected cases, no periodic reexamination will be scheduled: (i) When the disability is established as static; (ii) When the findings and symptoms are shown by examinations scheduled in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section or other examinations and hospital reports to have persisted without material improvement for a period of 5 years or more; (iii) Where the disability from disease is permanent in character and of such nature that there is no likelihood of improvement; (iv) In cases of veterans over 55 years of age, except under unusual circumstances; (v) When the rating is a prescribed scheduled minimum rating; or (vi) Where a combined disability evaluation would not be affected if the future examination should result in reduced evaluation for one or more conditions. M21-1 IV.ii.1.A.1.d. When Not to Schedule Review Examinations Do not establish a future examination control in cases when the disability is static, without material improvement over five years the disability is permanent in character and of such nature that there is no likelihood of improvement the Veteran is over 55 years of age (except under unusual circumstances or where required by regulation) the evaluation is the prescribed schedular minimum within its DC the evaluation is 10 percent or less, or the combined evaluation would not change even if the reex... ... Whether a case is found to involve the “unusual circumstances” described above and in 38 CFR 3.327(b)(2)(iv) is an individual, fact-specific determination left to the discretion of the rating activity. If, however, a future review examination is deemed warranted in light of unusual circumstances, the claims processor must identify and document the nature of the unusual facts found in the form of a remark in the SPECIAL NOTATION field on the PROFILE screen in the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) – Rating, or permanent VBMS note, if no rating decision is being simultaneously prepared.