Jump to content

allansc2005

Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • Posts

    529
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3
  • Donations

    $0.00 

allansc2005 last won the day on December 11 2017

allansc2005 had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About allansc2005

  • Birthday November 2

Contact Methods

  • Yahoo
    allansc2005

Profile Information

  • Military Rank
    Major
  • Location
    Palm Beach, Fla.

Previous Fields

  • Service Connected Disability
    100%
  • Branch of Service
    Army

Recent Profile Visitors

1,995 profile views

allansc2005's Achievements

Proficient

Proficient (10/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

47

Reputation

  1. Buck I did include the denial letter here on the thread. I think it's on pacman's block here. Berta did review it, and like the rest of us is confused as to why the VA wants to give the veteran ANOTHER C&P exam just to prove EED?! It's Ludacris because the vet is already SC 70% for PTSD, we are just arguing the EED with a Supplemental Claim for higher review(the old NOD claim). My entire thread lists the details. Yes, Bronco is the man when it comes to EEDs, as is Berta All you guys have helped me over the years, and a big salute for that! Allan 2-2-0 HOOAH!
  2. Berta, in my earlier post I mentioned that the Supplemental Claim we submitted did include evidence that was not readily available back in 2009/2010, which contained medical opinions by physicians(not RN's, PA's.) that the veteran's stressor(s) for PTSD was in FACT "more likely than not.." a result of _____ that happened in Korea in 1978. Today I'm having the veteran call the C&P folks at the VA and asking them what is his upcoming C&P exam for? The PTSD NEXUS is already established, his 70% is acceptable...we're not asking for an increase! 38 CFR 3.156(c) is the standard here no doubt. To me, the C&P exam is a waste of time, the veteran is P&T IU for PTSD et al, so no chance of his 70% being lowered, so IF they want to INCREASE his 70% to 100%, it won't address the issue of EED! Also let me say that the amount of back pay here, by VA standards isn't that much, so the local RO shouldn't be squeamish about approving an EED. Then again, how often is the VA not squeamish? BWAAAA!!! Allan 2-2-0 HOOAH!
  3. Berta, We don't have an issue with the 2010 decision, what we are asking for is for an earlier SC date for the veteran's award for PTSD made in 2020. Veteran went from 50% SC in 2020, to 70% in 2021. Neither award took him back to the initial denial date for PTSD in 2010. What's more puzzling is that AFTER we filed the Supplemental last month claiming an earlier effective date for the above, the VA sets the veteran up for ANOTHER C&P exam for PTSD, which will be the THIRD C&P exam for PTSD. How will ANOTHER C&P exam address the request/issue for an earlier SC date? Confused in Palm Beach. Allan 2-2-0 HOOAH!
  4. Berta, The veteran made all attempts possible to locate the stressor back in 2010, though I'm not sure if he kept the VA informed of his attempts or not. On the other hand, it appears the VA didn't do a very good job to assist the veteran as well. In any case, it's my assumption that the VA is obligated to retro the case back to the original date the veteran was denied SC, which is 2009? The medical evidence we submitted under Supplementary(formerly NOD), clearly shows that the stressor occurred back in 1978; we asked for an earlier date for retro based on these medical opinions "more likely than not.." What's got us puzzled is the fact that right after we submitted the above mentioned Supplemental, the VA has scheduled the veteran for yet another C&P exam, keeping in mind we didn't ask for a rate increase as the veteran is now TDIU and PTSD is 70% Scheduler. Sound like a Fenderson case to you? Questions, thoughts..? Allan 2-2-0 HOOAH!
  5. pacmanx1, the veteran is already 70% scheduler for PTSD and IU. We're not asking for a higher evaluation. We are aware that the examiner will follow the DBQ guidelines, and the veteran is well aware of the questions he will be asked.
  6. pacmanx1, our Supplementary Claim asked for an earlier date, and nothing else. As per Berta's request, I have uploaded here the veteran's redacted ORIGINAL denial letter for PTSD. Please see my previous posts for more details about this claim. Document_2021-06-02_190329.pdfBerta-2.pdf Document_2021-06-02_190124.pdfBerta-1.pdf
  7. Buck, The veteran is already IU, so we aren't seeking a higher SC for his PTSD which is 70%. Veteran is also SMC S-2 too. Also note the veteran is maxed out on SMCs, so we aren't concerned about that. What we're doing here is making an argument that the veteran should have been retro back to 2009 because that was the FIRST denial time frame for his PTSD. In our Supplemental Claim, formerly NOD, we asked that the veteran's retro be taken back to the above mentioned date, and we provided 2 medical opinions that express "more likely than not.." that the veteran's PTSD began in 1978(see my last posts). We submitted medical evidence not previously available to the veteran, basically claiming(without mentioning) a Fenderson case. As you know, the VA almost always gets effective dates wrong, and many vets don't even realize they are leaving BIG money on the table, but not veterans I help! Here tonight or tomorrow, as requested by Berta, I will post the veteran's denial letter for PTSD back in 2010(he applied in 2009)-redacted of course, and let you guys take a look at the VA flubb up on this man's effective date. Allan 2-2-0 HOOAH!
  8. The original claim was filed in 2009, denied in March of 2010.
  9. Berta, this was not a BVA denial claim. I'm trying right now to get the veteran to send me the 2009 denial letter, and once he does, I will redact it and post it here. Also, in some ways this case is similar to the one you helped me win my CUE with, whereas the VA ignored my earliest denial letter, and awarded me only a few months retro, instead of what turned out to be 24 years of retro which equaled BIG $$. Will keep you updated as soon as I can get the veteran to understand just how important this case is, as well as the need to get this out for you guys to look at and give me pointers on. Also let me commend you, bronco, pacman.., et al for your input concerning TDIU and how it applies to SMC's. This veteran was awarded SMC-S-2 without being 100% Scheduler, so you guys set the record straight on that. Thanks, and hope to be back with the veteran's redacted denial letter from 2009. Allan 2-2-0 HOOAH!
  10. UPDATE: Submitted a Supplemental Claim(replaces the old NOD) requesting an earlier SC based on a denial letter for PTSD back in 2009. Case History Index: Veteran was awarded PTSD-50%(December 2020) based on an incident that took place in Korea back in 1978. Veteran asked for and was granted an increase for PTSD-70%(February 2021). Veteran applied for and was DENIED SC for PTSD back in February, 2009. Veteran was paid retro ONLY back to December, 2020, even though his ONLY denial for PTSD was February, 2009. Our contention: Because the veteran applied for and was denied SC for PTSD, then his retro should have been back to that date of denial, and NOT retro to December, 2020, his FIRST SC approval for that PTSD claim. Our evidence we submitted with the Supplemental Claim: 1. Opinions by NON VA psychiatrists that veteran's PTSD "more likely than not began right after_______ incident took place while on duty stationed in Korea in 1978.." 2. Veteran's PTSD has worsened over the years as a DIRECT result of his____ incident that took place while on duty stationed in Korea in 1978. As a footnote, veteran has been scheduled for ANOTHER C&P exam relating to the above for what we THINK is to establish an earlier SC date stemming from our Supplemental Claim. Of course as we all know, because the veteran didn't apply for SC for PTSD within a year of his discharge, the retro won't go back to the day AFTER his discharge, so.., having said that, here's my question: What, in your opinion, should be the correct retro YEAR for this veteran's PTSD claim? Oh, veteran won't allow me to upload redacted documents here pertaining to this PTSD claim, sorry)-: Thanks, Allan 2-2-0 HOOAH!
  11. pacmanx1, Oh you can bet I'm not going to dictate to the VA if they choose to look at this case as Fenderson -v- BVA or not. Sadly, this veteran has been told more BS by the drunkards "lawyers" down at the American Legion hall, that he almost walked away from this case! All resources will be used, including the info here, to ensure this veteran gets his just rewards for the years of suffering from PTSD, and the devastating effects on his family as well. Thanks, pacmanx1, Berta, bronco..et al. Allan 2-2-0 HOOAH!
  12. Thanks pacmanx1, This case is a unique case that warrants a lot of thinking and strategy, especially given it falls under the Fenderson case. Allan 2-2-0 HOOAH!
  13. Berta, I will insist that the veteran provide this information you mentioned. If he agrees, I will redact personal information, and upload all other pertinent information, especially that information that points directly to his in-service event that led to his PTSD award. From talking to this veteran, he has "tons" of documentation such as Buddy letters, Army documentation, medical files, C files.., that shows beyond a doubt that this is a Fenderson case. Thanks, my all wise Miss Berta
  14. Berta, there is no doubt, this isn't a CUE situation. This isn't my case by the way. This veteran has extensive proof in the form of Buddy letters, Army investigations...., that his PTSD did in FACT result from an incident that happened in Korea in 1978. He has his complete C file, ALL doctor's reports, all VA exams..the whole ball of wax. In other words, it's WELL documented that this veteran has an active duty origin established for his PTSD.. So my questions are on my previous post. Oh, and Berta, thank you so much for the information you provided back in 2017 that helped me win my case! Allan 2-2-0 HOOAH!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines