Atlcocky

Good morning Vync, My case was mainly based on a pending unadjudicated claim. Truthfully, all the information was in the file since 1996. I asked, in writing and in front of the BVA, for the claim to be adjudicated for all of these years. Once the case went to the CAVC, I hired a lawyer to finish the case. He was excellent! It still took back and forth from the BVA to CAVC twice before they finally ran out of reasons to say no.

Good morning Vync, My case was mainly based on a pending unadjudicated claim. Truthfully, all the information was in the file since 1996. I asked, in writing and in front of the BVA, for the claim to be adjudicated for all of these years. Once the case went to the CAVC, I hired a lawyer to finish the case. He was excellent! It still took back and forth from the BVA to CAVC twice before they finally ran out of reasons to say no.

Tbird, Good mornng and thank you.

Hello all, Thank you all for the input on the case. I was recently approved with the correct EED. Of course, they have made some errors with the calculation of backpay. I will research to see if I can get a better idea but, I believe they have made a 5 figure error. I post in a separate thread but I am looking for historical pay charts from 1995-1999. The VA's website only goes back to 1999. I have also seen TBird post a chart but it did not have the rates with dependents. Thank you all again. Keep pursuing what you are entitled to!

Hello Hadit community, I am looking for and have been unable to find the pay chart from 1995-1998. The VA's site goes back to 1999 but no further. I have seen the chart that TBird has posted but it doesn't show the dependent's rates. If anyone knows the links on the VA site or some other site with this info, it will help me calculate my backpay award better. I got a large award but as several people have indicated, the VA may still be 5 figures off. I thank you all in advance. Atlcocky

This is the BVA's response to the remand.

Because this is for an EED, exams won't come into play. It was remanded because they failed to apply or acknowledge a law. There response was, even if the law applied or even if he had an informal claim, the claim is denied because of some reason that they never used before. Does this seem right? Again, it seems like they were told by the CAVC to look at the law concerning informal claims and they went beyond just looking at that.

Ok. Thank you all for your help.

So Bronco, There was nothing new added. It was the same file they had before the remand. Their response to the remand was a denial for some completely different reason.

Thank you all for answering. Here is the wording from the CAVC remand. Selfishly, I like Mr CUE's answer better because that what I want to believe. However, I know the hamster wheel very well.

Hello all, My claim for EFD was denied at the BVA level and then appeal to the CAVC. The CAVC, under a joint motion, remanded it back to the BVA. The BVA then denied again for a reason that was not in the file and something that we have not seen before. (I will upload the BVA denial letter tomorrow.) So, the question is can the BVA deny, deny, deny and then when the file comes back on remand, deny for a completely different reason than what they were ask to look at on the remand? By the way, the reason for the latest denial ahs NEVER been mentioned before. Thank you.

Ok Bronco. I understand. I believe that I can write it up in a consise, detail manner that will explain why I believe the date to be incorrectly decided. I will use what you gave me as a road map and then maybe find a nova attorney to look over what I have already completed. Do we have a good resource on hadit to find attorneys in the Atlanta area?

Hey Bronco, Thanks as always. Initially, I believe the section discussing I formal/I referred claims will be the correct route for me (more research to follow). It does concern me how this decision: [But see Deshotel v. Nicholson, 457 F.3d 1258But see Deshotel v. Nicholson, 457 F.3d 1258(Fed. Cir. (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Where vet files more than 1 claim with the RO at 2006) (Where vet files more than 1 claim with the RO at the same time, and the ROthe same time, and the RO’’s decision acts favorably or s decision acts favorably or unfavorably on one of the claims but fails to specifically unfavorably on one of the claims but fails to specifically address the other claim, the second claim is deemed address the other claim, the second claim is deemed denied, and the appeal period begins to run). denied, and the appeal period begins] could mess the whole process up. It this rule is correct, filiing a claim with multiple issues can be detrimental because it seems to say once a decision was made on some of the issues, then the rest are 'deemed denied'. Is that what this decision is saying?