Sorry for my tardy response, but I have been away from my computer.
Gastone
Yes, I do realize the 100% is not permanent. For the present, my VA doctor has recommended "watchful waiting" as the prostate cancer is presently presenting as "slow growth" & will monitor it via PSA tests and/or biopsies. From my research, this is an acceptable method of "active treatment" so the re-evaluation shouldn't be triggered until this situation changes.
Respecting your comment: "If you think your due an EED, have your VSO-Rep File a Official Review for CUE, request." - I am not sure if I am due this or not ... which is why I came to this forum to inquire.
Tbird
Thanks for the links but I think they are referencing mostly more complicated situations than mine as I have only a single rating by the VA and I'm just trying to find out if: A) I was shorted a month on the retro pay; and B) whether I was entitled to the one year retro pay mentioned in the the links I quoted (and bolded) in my 2nd post. I still don't know the answers to those questions - see below for details.
Buck52
Respecting your following comments:
"they are stating your effective date the date you filed looks to me like your not
going to get retro because the start date for comp is the beginning of the next
month. so you should get a 100% payment with dependents on 3/1/16"
Well, as I stated in my original post:
The reason I asked that question was because of the wording of the VA's award letter to me, also quoted in my original post:
"YOUR NOT GOING TO GET 100% BACK FROM 1968/69 if thats what you think?"
No, I didn't expect that
"you may have an argument about the EED as to when your Dr first diagnose you
or when the A.O. Cancer first arose but you need medical evidence to prove it."
Well, the VA's Urology department has been monitoring my rising PSA levels for over a year, which led them to do the prostate biopsy which came back positive for cancer. And that's what led me to my 2nd (clarified) question, repeated below:
Berta
Respecting your comments:
I, too, felt I supported my questions with both quotes AND links of the VA case law I was referring to, as well as the VA Award letter. In my 1st post, I quoted from the wrong section of the law, but corrected that in my 2nd post. So, we both are providing VA case law, I explain my reasoning as to why I think the 1 year retro might apply to me, and you just give me this conclusion:
... without telling me WHY the answer is "no". And when I responded:
... that's when you responded with the quote above where you said you had already posted the VA case law twice and from the subsequent conversation you and Buck52 had about how "frustrating" it was to deal with people like me, apparently thought I could not read &/or comprehend (for the record, I made nearly straight A's in college while both working full-time & going to school full-time, was a CPA and a hospital chief financial officer; as such, my reading/comprehension skills should not be an issue and your comments here were pretty insulting to me). So, you can copy/paste VA case law but you can't tell me what part of the law disqualifies me or what part of the law I quoted was wrong for the situation I presented?
Also, for the record, I indicated in my original post
... so your insinuation that I hadn't done my own research and apparently expected you to do it for me is off base. And to Buck52's suggestion that all of my questions should be answered by the pinned responses at the top of the web page, I had reviewed a couple of the likely topics and still had these questions. If anyone wants to refer me to a linked document or case law & quote me the relevant portion of same that provides the definitive answers I'm seeking, I'd be grateful.