63Charlie

Instead of developing evidence for the feet and ankles claims I recently filed (neuropathy, secondary to my service connected pes planus and arthritis), the VA now wants me to have a General Examination by QTC. Makes no sense at all to me. I'm not interested in having the VA open all my P&T disabilities to scrutiny because I filed these new secondary claims. Anyone have some solid advice to offer?

Fighting for the benefits earned is part of the game. You earned them. Now fight.

I don't have any of the rules or regs. My C&P exams were done on my remands two months ago and there is no movement(rating decision). Feels like the VA raters put my stuff on a shelf to collect dust. I'd like to kick-start things as my issues are obviously gathering dust waiting on a rater to decide. Is this only a pipe dream?

50/50 pro se. 90/10 with attorney.

I'm appealing for forty years of retro pay. I'll fight like hell too.

Sinus tarsi syndrome(increase) has been on appeal at the Board for more than a year. Is there is a limited time one can submit evidence when an appeal to the Board is filed? My condition has worsened. I am scheduled for surgery on my left lower foot/ankle. I will lose the use of my foot/ankle post op. Hopefully only temporary... if the surgery is successful. What is the rule governing the submission of new evidence for Board review? The appeal was filed over a year ago. My new evidence will show loss of use of my left foot/ankle after surgery.

Delay, deny, hope we die.

This ^ Just like the military was, and maybe still is, hurry up and wait. Appeal to the Board.

Good luck with your appeals, Lemuel. The VA is tough.

Isn't it odd that not a single one of my victories at the CAVC mention anything about those BVA decisions being arbitrary and capricious? If my memory serves me, I think my legal eagles won because the BVA erred in the reasons and bases requirement part of their decisions.

All that Asst. Solicitor General had to do was complain about the negative impact a favorable decision going to the petitioner would have on the VA. Unfortunately, I believe the George case laid the framework of what to expect in Arellano v. McDonough. I'm not surprised at all. My appeals will be at the CAVC for an EED relevant to the pending SCOTUS case. If the petitioner wins at the SCOTUS, this would be a game-changer for lots of vets.

I understand that. It is sad to be aware of what lengths the VA will go to deprive veterans of benefits.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/arellano-v-mcdonough/ Looks like the heavy hitters are getting a piece of the action. Will Andrews v. Principi and Irwiin v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs be overturned? Argument begins in October.

I believe I will be successful with at the Court to overturn the lowball 30% rating. BVA should have awarded a 60% rating base upon an IME performed by Dr. Ellis. That IME clearly stated multiple episodes of vertigo occurring monthly. Ignoring relevant evidence is frowned upon by the Court. I also intend to appeal for an earlier effective date dating back to April 1981 for Meniere's Disease when I ETS. see Arellano v. McDonough, SCOTUS * SCOTUS will have to overturn the precedent of "Irwin" for this issue to have success. Got to get ready for another C&P exam at QTC today. Almost forgot to mention, I recently had a C&P exam for hearing loss on remand performed and the examiner attempted to gaslight me that I had no hearing loss at my exit exam when I ETS. I informed the examiner that a threshold shift at 25 dB IS a hearing loss as established by court precedent. I informed her I will definitely appeal this matter to the CAVC based on the fact that she disclosed her intent to submit a DBQ which is not factual and is therefore inadequate for rating purposes. BTW...this examiner has past decades of experience as an audiologist for the VHA. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. The battle continues.

ALL legal expenses should be free when a vet wins. Veteran's litigation expenses should be paid by the VA, not taken from a vets retro pay.

I have several pending issues on remand and when the Board adjudicates those, I'll have my attorneys advise. If there are more errors, the attorneys can file an appeal for those too with the Court, along with a Meneire's Disease appeal. Got an upcoming C&P Monday at QTC for a half dozen issues that were remanded.

In May, 2022, a recent BVA decision granted service connection for Meniere's Disease and awarded the minimum 30% rating with an effective date July, 2018. This same May, 2022 BVA decision also granted service connection for tinnitus at a 10% rating effective date of April, 2016. During adjudication procedures, the VARO merged/combined the above two claims into one. VA adjudicators stated that their basis for combining was that "these two issues were inextricably intertwined". I agree. Based upon the VA's own admission, I will be appealing the Board decision for entitlement to an earlier effective date for Meniere's Disease to April, 2016, (same effective date as the tinnitus). Ok...my second appeal at the CAVC will be about the 30% rating decision that the Board awarded. My claims file evidence before the Board included an IME from Dr. John Ellis, M.D., indicating the occurrence of MD related vertigo two to three times monthly. The Board overlooked, and failed to mention, this relevant evidence(episodic vertigo) when awarding the 30% rating for MD. Failure to develop and maximize a veteran's entitlement to benefits is error by the Board. IF I happen to be successful at the CAVC, I should receive retroactive pay based upon eligibility for an earlier effective date of entitlement to SMC-S. FYI... I will NOT appear at the court without counsel. This is a job for a professional.

damn skippy

Ebenefits shows separate ratings with different effective dates, 30% for MD(2018) and 10% for tinnitis(2016). This decision is way over my head VA merged the two claims long ago saying the two claims were "inextricably intertwined" based upon my symptoms. Because the VA made that decision, shouldn't I be entitled to the earlier effective date(2016) for MD?

Do you think you can gaslight us on this forum with the above statement and we will keep quiet? If it isn't gaslighting, then you must have no real world experience filing VA disability claims. The truth paints a different picture. 1. I have had multiple C&P examiners falsify their DBQs by stating "there is no diagnosis for the condition claimed" which contradicts the medical evidence in my claims file. 2. I have had multiple C&P examiners falsify DBQs by checking boxes which contradicted the medical evidence in my claims file. 3. I have had multiple C&P examiners falsely state on their DBQs that they performed an examination on a body part when they never even looked at it. 4. I have had examiners tell me at the end of the exam, "I think your condition should be service connected>" and then send the VA an unfavorable DBQ filled with false information. I am flabbergasted.

I qualified for, and was granted SMC-S in 2017. I have several issues on appeal, and several more which are on remand from the Board which, if granted, will make me eligible for an earlier effective date for SMC-S. Every little 10% rating is useful to me toward qualifying for an earlier statutory 100% +60% SMC-S rating. I'm only in it for the money that the VA should be paying me. I may appeal the VROC decision for an earlier effective date than 2018 for the Meniere's Disease. The C&P examiner failed to perform an adequate ear conditions exam based on failure to diagnose Meniere's Disease in 2016. The VA has a duty to assist and there was plenty of evidence for the audiologist that performed my ear condition exam to diagnose Meniere's Disease. Symptoms such as vertigo, long history of dizziness, fluctuating hearing loss, tinnitis were in my claims file at the time of the exam. I need to find out if this argument has a legal precedent.

Also, what is an "at once exam" to determine my level of disability? Should I believe in Unicorns and other magical creatures to go along with the DRO statement?

The Board decided my tinnitis claim is rated at 10%, effective date April, 2016. The Board decided my Meniere's Disease is rated at 30%, effective date July, 2018. Based on what I understand, after these favorable Board decisions, along comes a DROC under Section 1., "Reasons For Decision", and invalidates the Board's 10% tinnitus rating stating it is "stopped", and that my separate tinnitis rating is now combined with my Meniere's Disease 30% rating, effective July, 2018. I'm attaching files for peer review and opinions.

Also won a remand at the CAVC for service connection on my limp noodle syndrome. Bet this will be a hoot! Judge at the Board said no pencil whipping allowed by the VARO this time. Makes me feel kind of like a boss. I'm sure the VARO will make the utmost effort to disappoint me.