pwrslm

you still want to check the validity of the ratings on your own then If the awarded 0%, validate that this is not a lowballed rating. This happens all to often. Same goes with the ratings that you did get, verify that you think the symptoms you have are what you see in the rating sheets. I was given 20% for my left lower extremity radiculopathy. The C&P exam noted atrophy, which called for a 40% rating. After documenting this with a HLR, they corrected it to 40%.

If you can visit your regional office, they should give you a copy. If not, you need to get QTC and LHI exams through FOIA.

What medical record on the conditions they rated from 7/20 at the C&P? If there were not enough medical evidence that would support a rating prior to the 7/20 C&P, then they would not award you benefits prior to the date that medical evidence showed a ratable condition existed. Example would be the RO could ID a 0% ratable condition in 11/18, but the severity could not be documented prior to 7/20. They would not award the 11/18 because the info they have does not justify it. Check the reasons and basis for this in your decision letter. The RO should explain why they did this. Look at the medical records in the C-File from the original date of submission in 2018, and track if the records show any changes or progression of the condition up to the C&P in 07/20. If the conditions all show they were the same and ratable from 11/18, then you will likely prevail in this. Document the records for a HLR or appeal on this issue. If you have any other medical evidence showing a ratable condition existed in 11/18 then a supplemental should work. A few lay statements from family/friends/employers may also do the trick for new evidence to avoid the HLR. The point you have to get across is that the conditions they dated 07/20 were ratable in 11/18. Same thing goes with the conditions they awarded 0% for. Check the records to see what they based their decision on, and if they missed anything, or you find anything else wrong, post back on that issue. 0

Paralysis also counts as "missing" parts. Any time a limb is useless it applies toward SMC. VA's list as follows: • Loss, or loss of use, of a hand or foot • Immobility of a joint • Paralysis • Loss of sight of an eye (only seeing light) • Loss, or loss of use, of a reproductive organ • Complete loss, or loss of use, of both buttocks • Deafness of both ears (no air and bone conduction) • Inability to communicate by speech (complete organic aphonia) • Loss of a percentage of tissue from a single breast, or both breasts, from mastectomy or radiation treatment

I agree, but the RO's may be so swamped they do not pay attention. The end result is wasted tax dollars and veterans getting screwed over. It is up to the veteran to scream and holler about it because nobody else is.

VA OIG’s report found that during the 6 month period under review, “VBA spent $10.1 million on unwarranted examinations – $5.3 million involving Veterans Health Administration (VHA) clinicians and $4.8 million involving VBA contractors.” Based on their review, OIG estimates that VBA is on track to spend $100.6 million on unwarranted reexaminations over the course of the next 5 years. Maybe it would be wise to submit a copy of he VA OIG report into the claim record.

In all of this issue, the only time that it really impacts a Vet is if the additional C&P's result is a decreased rating. The VARO can order C&P exams on a claim for A&A. If they find an increase in necessary, they must increase a rating. The claim itself does not require the Vet to claim increases, but the VA should never post that a Veteran requested increases. I think AskNod said when the Vet objects to those they are null from the inception. But processed correctly, the RO does not even need to say the Vet requested an increase. If the rating/exam is wrapped up in the A&A evaluation, shouldn't it be a basic step in the Eval and trigger any residuals discovered by maximizing the benefits?

HADIT is unique. The closest thing to it is VBN, which was real political and a pain in the tush when I registered with them. I found HADIT in 2014, and through help I got mostly here I started my own claim that netted 40%. I got a HLR from St Pete and they bumped it to 60%. A year later, I injured a shoulder, and landed that as 20%, and then a lumbar surgery which landed another 40% plus. In the end (Fall of 2018) after a second cervical fusion I was granted 100% P&T. The education of several lifetimes are condensed in HADIT and every Vet seeking help for claims should be referred to this site. This education is handed from Vet to Vet by helpful and compassionate people. The wisdom found on HADIT is difficult to find in the myriad of confusion of VA Claims.

Did the Judges order address the 2001 back date of EED and if so, exactly what was said? If he did, and cited precedent/CFR/USC data, we could research that to check it. The wording in both the claim and decision is very important because if an omission occurred it can be addressed. Bertha knows more about this than anyone else here IMO. If you worded the claim improperly, you can bring it up again in a new claim, however, if the decision omitted to address it, they should be able to CUE themselves. If an error was made at the CAVC, doesn't it appeal to federal appeals courts? An appeal would require the CAVC to address the opposing argument and they would either agree and grant the EED or oppose it and present reasoning behind it for a higher appeal. This level of appeals is completely outside of the VA system, so it is a Federal Court. The CAVC would be certain to cross its Ts and dot every i at that point. Going at it without a lawyer might not be the best move at this level also. Filing CUE on this issue would be the last opportunity to correct the problem as well. The courts would be able to reject any further claims on EED if they denied a CUE. It would be the end after CUE.

Look at the rating decision. Then look up the 38CFR info on what they awarded you -vs- what you claimed in the original filing. You know your symptoms, so you should be able to gage if they were right. If not, supplemental claim with new evidence can be submitted showing why you think they should give you a higher rating. Usually this would lead to something they omitted in the original decision like existing records not cited or something they did not have on hand. Any info that was omitted/discounted has to be noted as such, with the reason in the decision letter if it is in your C-File/VAMC records or Active Duty records. Any documentation you provide must be considered, so this would be the time to get an IMO to back up your claim. Supplemental Claims are much faster (months) than appeals (years), so exhaust that option first. You can file multiple Supplemental Claims as long as you have new and relevant information to include. New information can be professional medical journal studies or articles that rebut the information from C&P examinations. You may need an IMO or professional, published, medical literature/treatise to document your case.

Vet's can get most of their records through the HealthEVet system. Release of Information (ROI) can get you info that is not in the report (BlueButton Report). If you are sent to non-VA community care, those records will not be in the records accessible through HealthEVet. They can be provided via ROI. Other reports that do not show (like non-VA C&P exams) can be printed out if you ID them to the ROI rep, usually they can dig them up for you. You can also get XRays, Ultrasounds, MRI's, and CT Scans from ROI on a CD. These can be taken to non-VA medical professionals for those who need independent medical opinions/examinations (IMO/IME). If you do get an IMO/IME it is best to take all of the above to the appointment as well as your active duty records. Request that the examiner for your independent exam review these records and state that they were reviewed in the medical report you get from them. Sometimes these records are voluminous, so it is also a good idea to bookmark relevant data for your IMO/IME.

You get one shot when filing CUE with BVA. If you word it wrong, and they reject it, they can ignore any further action you take on it. Be aware that CUE claims to VARO and BVA are very different.. At the BVA, Veterans only have one shot at a CUE claim. If the CUE is denied by the BVA the Veteran loses the ability claim a CUE on that decision. Like Broncovet said, file based on new evidence because you reserve the CUE until the last possible moment.

The law gives no instructions to any Government employee that they should lie. With out a proper explanation, and a documentation to justify the work they do based on the law, then the C&P exam is improper.

they have a lot of episodes on YouTube

There is a difference between advocating against your own benefits and holding the VA's feet to the fire. They should be able to articulate why they want these exams. The fact that they said the Veteran requested them is a lie. Lies should not be tolerated from any government employee. Period. Like I said from the start, the key to this may be that they have to figure out if any of these conditions worsened to justify the increase/addition to A&A. But initiating exams on every condition that the Vet has SC is a waste of both time and tax dollars and should be stopped in its tracks. If we get along to go along, it will never change. If we hold their feet to the fire, they will eventually comply with IG recommendations and federal law.

They let us download out Blue-Button report that is heavily protected by HIPPA, I don't see why we cannot get access like that to to the VBA system. Transparency in the claims process would probably resolve a lot of problems before they get out the door. We should have access and communications with RO's so we can detail errors as soon as they are noted instead of being forced to file more claims and appeals that put benefits months and years down the road. If the costs were cut 10% by being transparent, it would pay for itself within a short time. I suspect that transparency would likely cut much more than 10% though.

Sometimes I get to thinking that these guys were trained by the same person. They all make the same mistakes. The new C&Ps they said YOU requested are not necessary for A&A. The key to this may be that they have to figure out if any of these conditions worsened to justify the increase/addition to A&A. The RO has no right to say you requested increases on all of your rated conditions. I would raise a stink about that. The IG dinged the VBA about unnecessary C&P exams. VA IG said bogus C&P exams would cost the VA $100 million over 5 years. Start tossing in the VA IG report from 2018 and screaming about wasted tax dollars and see how fast they respond. I did this by getting a supervisor on the 800 line. It worked. If the C&P is to determine which of your conditions are severe enough to cause the necessity for A&A, then you will have your answer. If not, they will cancel them. Alternatively, if the increase is documented in VA medical records, the C&P exams truly are unnecessary. The VA should use acceptable clinical evidence (ACE) already at hand to make this decision if it exists.

This I do disagree with. That is what they made the VA IG for. The issue on the C&P exam is very relevant because it demonstrates what the IG report stated, unnecessary exams which cost the VA wasted tax dollars. That was the whole thing the IG report was about, and it relates to your claim because they cannot use it to evaluate the CUE. IF, and only if, they need to change the rating from the date the error occurred, then (after the decision) they should employ a new C&P if it were warranted. Mr CUE is meticulous in his work, and so should all of us. We need not disagree, but instead find the actual rules/regulations supported by USC and CFR that support everything we submit, as well as validate every step the VARO takes. No exceptions, we stand together.

C&P exam from the original claim is all they can use for CUE. New C&P should not be made for 3-5 years IAW current reg's and the CFR. Exceptions to that would be a new evaluation, which is not what a CUE is all about. So no, when a correction based on VARO errors are made, it should be specific to that error and not a new evaluation (which would open a whole new and separate appeals process). The VARO should NOT begin a new evaluation based on the "opportunity" when they made a mistake. Whatever results from the CUE is baseline and if they want to re-evaluate the issue, they need to follow the rules. This can be claimed as retaliatory conduct by the RO because there is nothing that can be used in CUE with the new evaluation. They cannot use the new evaluation to make that determination, and pushing new C&P's is an abuse of process which has been documented by the IG in the past. On July 17, 2018, the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a report entitled “Unwarranted Medical Reexaminations for Disability Benefits,” that found that VA conducts thousands of unnecessary medical exams for disabled veterans, and is on track to spend more than $100 million over the next five years on these unwarranted reexaminations if nothing changes.

Actually, the VA has no need for a new C&P when you file CUE. Refusing to go would not change the outcome of the CUE determination because they are not allowed to use new evidence when they process the CUE.

Why does the VARO need a new C&P for CUE? Seems like the claim involving an error in a prior decision would be a legal and not a medical issue. At issue is the evidence at hand when the decision was made, which precludes the necessity for a new exam.

They have a similar situation in Colorado with the Rocky Mountain Arsenal and the Rocky Mtn Flats. They disposed of (buried) chemical waste and munitions from mustard gas and other nerve agents post WWI and WWII at the Arsenal. They whitewashed an investigation on this, but the cancer rates of those in the regions are higher than normal. The report blamed it on smokers. Go figure.

I had LHI for an injury to my shoulder. My SC left leg gave out on me, and I fell. On the way down I reached out and tried to stop the fall, which caused the shoulder injury. LHI's "medical professional" said that my left leg could not cause a shoulder injury. Go figure. Its been in appeals for 17 months now. HLR also failed to recognize the obvious error because nobody mentioned the fall except me about a dozen times in VA medical records when they treated me for the shoulder injury. The RO and examiner ignored the fall completely. Without common sense, they are about useless.

The CUE under USC is not a typical claim for benefits. The Mission act addresses a claim for benefits. CUE is a legal challenge, and the purpose is to correct an obvious mistake, not to make a claim for benefits. The CUE does process the same as a claim, but when they address it IAW USC it flows through as an adversarial instead of non-adversarial. The VA is in full opposition and holds zero duty to help the vet, unlike a typical claim. So while the CUE can process through the same channel as a claim for benefits, it is not a claim in the traditional definition. "The effective date will be fixed in accordance with the date entitlement arose, but will not be earlier than the date of receipt of the supplemental claim."

Check the C&P exam the VA did when they denied you and severed the condition from SC. There is no reason here that shows what excuse they used. What you want to see is if the examiner provided a reasonable medical basis for his/her decision that the previous/post service exam was in error. It must overcome your original diagnosis. If the RO did not have this, then it is CUE. You said the VA diagnosed you with OSA in the original C&P exam and awarded 30% SC. If you were under 1 year from discharge and were diagnosed with OSA, they must prove that you had OSA before you entered the Army in order to overcome that decision of the original award. You should not have needed a Nexus w/in 1 year of your discharge. If there was no explanation, then you should be able to blow this whole thing up and get back pay from the moment they severed OSA. The RO is supposed to have a medical basis to look at when he applies the medical opinion that the OSA was not SC, but instead was in error. What you want to see then, is the original diagnosis that awarded your SC, and then the opinion that showed it was in error. If there is nothing showing you had OSA prior to the entrance exam, and nothing is said in the entrance exam about OSA, you should win this. It is easy to get the IMO today and the IMO will grant SC from the day you filed the claim with new evidence. What you want to see is the existing evidence where the RO said an error was made, and insure that it was an error. You do not need the Nexus within 1 year of discharge if there was a diagnosis of OSA for the original grant.