Jump to content

SPO

Chief Petty Officers
  • Content Count

    202
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About SPO

  • Rank
    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

Previous Fields

  • Service Connected Disability
    80%
  • Branch of Service
    USMC

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I was taking more about the rater. I’m on supplemental so wondering if they will try to ACE based of my new info (confirmed diagnosis and nexus) and ROM from my old c&p.
  2. Looks like I’ll be in a holding pattern for a while. Mine needs ROM. since they are trying to use ACE can they pick and choose the parts of a c&p to consider as acceptable info? Or is it all or nothing?
  3. Has anyone been scheduled for an in person C&P recently through one of the VA contractors even though VA facilities are closed? Just wondering if all in person exams are on hold or just at VA facilities.
  4. This is exactly what I'm trying to prevent. I'm going to go ahead and include a statement with my supplemental hoping pointing out that I know what they are supposed to be doing will keep them from trying to screw it up. In accordance with: -M21-1, Part III, Subpart iv, Chapter 5, Section C - Effective Dates, III.iv.5.C.6.b. Continuously Pursued Claims, III.iv.5.C.1.e. Determining Whether Date of Claim or Date Entitlement Arose Is Later and 38 CFR 3.2500(h)(1). The entitling criteria of my disabilities was in existence prior to the receipt of the claim by Veteran's affairs, therefore the effective date should be assigned as the date of the Intent to file, November 16, 2018.
  5. I figured it would be a mystery what the VA will do. I was hoping to be able to drop a statement to influence, or least let them know, that I know what they should be doing. Any ideas about the medical records that aren't completely in my favor? for what its worth I was denied for no clinical diagnosis.
  6. Question 1: I've been told that the VA is has been only granting effective dates for supplemental claims back to the date the supplemental was received. In my case it is a supplemental after February 2019 when the new appeals process went into effect, and has not been finally adjudicated (1st decision 5/15/19, HLR decision 2/24/20, now working supplemental). I'm attempting to preemptively keep this from happening and get my effective date back to when the initial claim was submitted. From the research I've done the VA orders and regulation say it should be granted back to the initial, but apparently they are taking date entitlement arose to mean they date they received all the information in the supplemental (i'm not sure if there is confusion between a continuously pursued supplemental, or one after the claim is finally adjudicated). I have provided medical records showing a diagnosis back to before I submitted the initial claim, so the date the entitlement arose should be before the initial claim. Anyone know if I am correct, or what I can do to persuade them to give me the correct effective date without going through appeal? Question 2: Some of the medical records that support the older diagnosis date aren't 100% favorable. While they do show the diagnosis, they show a reduced level of severity (didn't really like this doctor, he wouldn't listen) from what I currently experience. Would this affect my decision? Some of these medical records is now about 2 years old. I just don't want to provide anything the VA can flip and use to deny me. CFR 3.2500(h)(1) M21-1, Part III, Subpart iv, Chapter 5, Section C - Effective Dates - III.iv.5.C.6.b. Continuously Pursued Claims
  7. So I’ve done some research and it seems like this C&p although bad will get me to 100% rating. Should I try to fight this CMP still or let it ride and try to get an increase on the joints they did incorrectly later?
  8. https://www.knowva.ebenefits.va.gov/system/templates/selfservice/va_ssnew/help/customer/locale/en-US/portal/554400000001018/content/554400000014194/M21-1-Part-III-Subpart-iv-Chapter-4-Section-A-Musculoskeletal-Conditions#1p this says painful motion for thumb, pointer, and middle are 10% each for painful motion I think. Ring and pinky can’t get more than 0%
  9. She just notated painful motion on all 10 fingers ( not frozen Not sure if those charts apply or if it would just be 10% per hand)
  10. If I file a claim for arthritis in my hands and the examiner notates an issue with each individual finger will they rate the whole hand together or each individual finger separately?
  11. Going to throw this statement in to hopefully shoot down my exam I believe that the C&P exam that I received in connection with my psoriatic arthritis claim was insufficient. I was unable to make this conclusion for sure until I received a copy of my C-file and verified the what the examiner recorded in the exam, this process took over 11 months which delayed my ability to review the examiners entries and comments. During the exam the examiner did not use a goniometer during the measurement of many of the affected joints. I asked the examiner if it was necessary to use the goniometer at least twice and she stated it was ok. I believe this resulted in inaccurate measurements of range of motion that may negatively effect the final outcome of my claim. The examiner did also not record the my statements accurately. I informed the examiner on every joint that I experience flare ups. I informed the examiner that all the affected joints experience functional loss/impairment, however many of the forms do not reflect this information. There are also no less than 2 instances where the remarks section states no evidence of pain. However, the range of motion section of the exam notates pain. On the arthritis dbq the examiner noted that continuous medication was not required for this condition. However, I made the examiner aware that I was prescribed Stelara and regularly take ibuprofen to manage the pain of this condition. This information was also provided in the form of a DBQ by my doctor, and a letter from the same doctor which should have been reviewed by the examiner. These reports are clearly inconsistent and poorly completed. Due to all of these insufficiencies/errors, I believe my exams are invalid. and this one for the effective date. In accordance with M21-1, Part III, Subpart iv, Chapter 5, Section C - Effective Dates III.iv.5.C.6.b. Continuously Pursued Claims and 38 CFR 3.2500(h)(2), the effective date of this claim, should it be granted, should be the date the initial claim (intent to file) was received.
  12. II.iv.5.C.6.b. Continuously Pursued Claims If an issue is continuously pursued under 38 CFR 3.2500(c) as a higher-level review (HLR), supplemental claim, or appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) (or a timely combination of any of those review options, in succession), decision makers must apply the effective date provisions of 38 CFR 3.2500(h)(1), which allows for an effective date based on the date of receipt of the initial claim, or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. Note: A supplemental claim filed within one year following a decision on the same issue for that same claimant from CAVC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or the Supreme Court of the U.S. is considered a continuously pursued claim and can be afforded the effective date provisions of 38 CFR 3.2500(h)(1).
  13. Would it be helpful to through a statement in with my claim to referencing the regulation to remind them what my eed should be?
  14. Thats what I'm hoping. I just talked to DAV and they said the VA should request a new C&P, but I should submit a statement why I think the first one is bad. They also said the VA hasn't been going back to original EED on supplemental claims. Just from when the supplemental was submitted.
  15. This was actually a secondary claim (1st time) filed in December 2018. The C&P was march 2019, the claim was denied May 2019, I filed a higher level review December 2019 which was denied, which gave me another year to appeal. I am now submitting the supplemental in response to the higher level review. It took so long to find out the C&P was bad because it took them 11 months to get me a copy of my C-file, so I had no idea what she wrote. My EED should still be in effect to November 2018 based on my Intent to file. I do have new evidence in the form of a Nexus/diagnosis letter, medical records, and a lay statement that were not part of the initial claim.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines