Jump to content

SgtE5

Seaman
  • Content Count

    28
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About SgtE5

  • Rank
    E-3 Seaman

Previous Fields

  • Branch of Service
    U.S.M.C

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Just an update that I haven't heard anything yet on the WH complaint. When I made the complaint, I was told that if I don't hear anyting by the end of the month, to call back and check on it. So still waiting.
  2. I have no idea. I live in Florida. Should have been the St. Pete RO. But I was told this morning by the VSO the decision can be from any RO office. I did just got off the phone with the WH Hotline and made a formal complaint. We'll see how that goes.
  3. Spoke with the county VSO this morning. He says this is not a CUE. Just someone forgot to copy and paste the C&P as evidence. He says it will get looked at during my NOD. So I don't know what to do now about it.
  4. I have an appointment on Monday with a VSO to discuss the cue. Hopefully he will have enough knowledge to know what to do.
  5. Thank you sir. I was actually wrong on the decision date. Got my claims confused. This was decided June 28, 2018. I just recieved my c-file this week. Oddly enough, reading further into the c-file, the LHI opinion was signed off on June 8, 2018 and decision was June 28, 2018. Wonder if that was enough time to have LHI entered in the record.
  6. "The VA denied the claim. In order to do that they had to have an "opinion" contrary to the LHI doctor's positive opinion." Asknod, in reading my c-file, there is no other opinion in it to rebut the LHI opinion. If so, shoudn't it be in my c-file?
  7. Alright, here is a draft of my cue. I'll add address and such later. March 15, 2019 To: St. Petersburg VA Regional Office This is a claim of CUE, Clear and Unmistakable Error, under provisions of 38 USC 5109(a). I respectfully request the VA to call a clear and unmistakable error on part of the June 28, 2018 decision from the St. Petersburg, FL. VARO and to correct it. The decision violates 38 CFR 4.6 thus: § 4.6 Evaluation of evidence. The element of the weight to be accorded the character of the veteran's service is but one factor entering into the considerations of the rating boards in arriving at determinations of the evaluation of disability. Every element in any way affecting the probative value to be assigned to the evidence in each individual claim must be thoroughly and conscientiously studied by each member of the rating board in the light of the established policies of the Department of Veterans Affairs to the end that decisions will be equitable and just as contemplated by the requirements of the law. In the Decision Letter dated June 28, 2018 (enclosure #1), I was denied service-connection for left ankle condition and bilateral knee condition. I was given a COMPENSATION AND PENSION EXAM on May 30th, 2018 by LHI - Tampa, FL. (A contracted by the VA Compensation and Pension Exam specialist in the field of DMA Musculoskeletal Examination) (enclosure #2)) The evidenced listing page of the denial (enclosure #1) shows evidence in record except the Compensation and Pension Exam that was performed for left ankle condition and bilateral knee condition. I received my Decision letter dated June 28th, 2018 with the denial of claimed conditions stating in part that: Left Ankle: We did not find a link between your medical condition and military service. While your service treatment records reflect complaints, treatment, or a diagnosis similar to that claimed, the medical evidence supports the conclusion that a persistent disability was not present in service. Right Knee: We did not find a link between your medical condition and military service. While your service treatment records reflect complaints, treatment, or a diagnosis similar to that claimed, the medical evidence supports the conclusion that a persistent disability was not present in service. Left Knee: We did not find a link between your medical condition and military service. While your service treatment records reflect complaints, treatment, or a diagnosis similar to that claimed, the medical evidence supports the conclusion that a persistent disability was not present in service. On the Compensation and Pension Exam Inquiry dated May 30th, 2018 (enclosure #2) the examiner opined for both conditions: The claimed condition was at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. Which is a favorable opinion for me. Her rationale for left ankle condition: Veteran had no issues related to the claimed CONDITION prior to military service. Onset of the condition was during service, documented in the Service Medical Records. There is evidence of current, chronic and continuous treatment and care. A nexus has been established. Veteran was seen for left ankle injury as documented in STRs. In VA records veteran reported "generalized pain in multiple joints" at many visits. Her rationale for bilateral knee condition: Veteran had no issues related to the claimed CONDITION prior to military service. Onset of the condition was during service, documented in the Service Medical Records. There is evidence of current, chronic and continuous treatment and care. A nexus has been established. There are multiple encounters for "multiple joint pain generalized " at VA after service. During service STRS indicate treatment for bilateral patellofemoral pain syndrome. Clearly a link has been established which contradicts the decision. The VA's failure to consider and evaluate this evidence that the VA had in their possession when read in a light most favorable to the Veteran, manifestly altered the outcome of the decision referred to above. 38 CFR 4.6 is a well-established tenet of basic VA case law, and the prime “element” of my claim -the actual C & P exam-was never considered. I suggest that you correct this clear and unmistakable error immediately. Respectively submitted,
  8. I am still here thinking about filing the cue. A question for you all, what happens if the deny the cue? Does it go back to the normal appeal process?
  9. asknod, I truely respect your opinion. I appreciate what you write and have the upmost respect for you. Thank you. My appeal is from Sep. 2018 so I think it doesn't fall under the new appeals process that took effect last month. I haven't received any notice as of yet anyway that says it falls under the new process.
  10. I have a copy of my SMR's and just recieved my c-file. No, the doctors while I was in the military did not diagnose acute. They didn't diagnose chronic either. Chronic comes from my VA medical records. I've been complaining since I entered the system in 2002. The acute came from the denial decision and they didn't didn't recite a specific evidence in their decison of acute.
  11. Yes I understand what acute means and knew it before your post. In my smr, the diagnoses was not acute. The acute came from the denial decsion. They decided it was acute.
  12. I guess where I am confused is why send a vet to a c&p and then ignore their opinion. Ignore meaning not in the evidence list and deny. Isn't that what a c&p is for? 1 to get an examnition and 2 an opinion as to nexus.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines