Jump to content

Mr cue

Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • Posts

    416
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1
  • Donations

    $0.00 

Mr cue last won the day on June 11

Mr cue had the most liked content!

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Mr cue's Achievements

Proficient

Proficient (10/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

28

Reputation

1

Community Answers

  1. I really think the va and bva are trying to play with my head. Every week I get the decision for the remand for loss of use in the mail. My exam has been cancelled by qtc I really just want to withdraw the loss of use smc claim. But the bva has put my cavc remand for smc o and r under this. If I withdraw this they will try to withdraw my cavc remand for smc o and r. See there games The cavc remand for my effective dates are now under the new ama system with a 2021 start date They refuse to send them back to board. Now I wait at end of line My adjustment disorder remand by the court. Is now a new 2021 appeal 100000 in line. Because of them make me do a new form 9 to continue my appeal. And bva just told the court I can ask for them to be advance on docket. Smh. Like a cavc is not to be expidate. So I guess now you appeal alway to the us court of appeals. And get a remand from the court and they don't return to the front of the line no more. You now start over. New nod new form 9 and new docket number. Guess no more expidate cavc remand any no more. Boy I can't wait for this cavc decision on my petition and sanction on the va. Because this is crazy Seen June the va has let qtc hold my cavc remand for loss of use. An not do anything. The only issue still under the cavc remand docket Now qtc just told me they send it back Friday yea Right. And still ain't did nothing. Lol The va just put me back in years to wait for a bva decision on a cavc remand. My only hope is the court and the loss of use remand been return to board. Maybe if it return to the judge he will address the other stuff. I really seen this coming when I was told to do a new form 9 and a new nod. For a cavc remand I did all that 2018 how. Here it is in black and white ppl. I just hope the court let them have it. B. Remand for Issuance of an SOC Proposed 38 CFR 19.9(c) stated that in situations where a claimant timely filed a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) with a determination of the AOJ, but the record does not reflect that the AOJ subsequently granted the claim in full or furnished the claimant with an SOC, the Board shall remand the claim to the AOJ with instructions to prepare and issue an SOC. See generally Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999). While agreeing with the substance of the proposed regulatory amendment, one commenter expressed concern that ‘‘the statement at 74 FR 67151 [of the Preamble] that the claimant must file another timely Substantive Appeal to perfect the appeal is contrary to law’’ (emphasis added). The commenter cited to Hamilton v. Brown, 39 F.3d 1574, 1585 (Fed. Cir. 1994), as support for the proposition that a claim that has been remanded to the AOJ will be ‘‘automatically returned to the Board for further processing if full relief is not awarded by the [AOJ] on remand.’’ See Hamilton, 39 F.3d at 1584–85 (citing 38 CFR 19.182 (1988) (now codified in 38 CFR 19.9, 19.31, and 19.38)). We respectfully disagree with the commenter as the Preamble does not state that a claimant must file another Substantive Appeal after issuance of an SOC. The portion of the Preamble referenced by the commenter states the following: ‘‘The appeal initiated by the filing of the NOD will be subsequently returned to the Board only if, after the AOJ issues the SOC, the appellant files a timely Substantive Appeal that perfects the appeal to the Board.’’ NPRM, 74 FR at 67151. This sentence explains that the situation addressed in proposed § 19.9(c) is one where a claimant has not had an opportunity to file a Substantive Appeal on the issue being remanded because the AOJ has not yet issued an SOC. Therefore, the commenter’s characterization of proposed § 19.9(c) as requiring the filing of a second Substantive Appeal is simply incorrect. Rather, the law is well settled that an appeal to the Board consists of a timely filed NOD in writing and, after an SOC has been furnished, the submission of a timely filed Substantive Appeal. 38 U.S.C. 7105(a); 38 CFR 20.200. Accordingly, a matter that is remanded pursuant to proposed § 19.9(c) for issuance of an SOC may be returned to the Board only if a timely Substantive Appeal is filed, following the issuance of the SOC, for purposes of perfecting the appeal of the matter to the Board. The commenter’s reliance on Hamilton is also misplaced. Unlike proposed § 19.9(c), Hamilton did not address remand by the Board for the limited purpose of issuing an SOC. Hamilton instead addressed a remand for evidentiary development in an appeal that had already been perfected by the timely filing of a Substantive Appeal. Hamilton, 39 F.3d at 1577–78. In Hamilton, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) specifically discussed whether a statement filed in response to a Supplemental SOC (SSOC) could be considered an NOD. Hamilton, 39 F.3d at 1584–85. The Federal Circuit concluded that, since an SSOC was not an initial determination made by the AOJ, such a statement could not be considered an NOD, even if it raised new issues in connection with the claim. Id. at 1584. The Federal Circuit did not discuss whether a claimant needed to submit multiple Substantive Appeals; it addressed whether multiple NODs could be filed in one claim. Thus, the situation in Hamilton was markedly different from that addressed by proposed § 19.9(c), which concerns the Board’s remand of a claim to the AOJ for issuance of an SOC so an appellant can have an opportunity to file a single Substantive Appeal necessary to complete the appeal to the Board. We accordingly make no change to the proposed rule based on this comment. We are, however, making one minor revision to proposed § 19.9(c). In the NPRM, we proposed the following rule language: ‘‘In cases before the Board in which a claimant has timely filed a Notice of Disagreement with a determination of the agency of original jurisdiction on a claim, but the record does not reflect that the agency of original jurisdiction subsequently granted the claim in full or furnished the claimant with a Statement of the Case, the Board shall remand the claim to the agency of original jurisdiction with instructions to prepare and issue a Statement of the Case * * * .’’ 74 FR at 67154. Upon further consideration of this language, we have determined that the use of the disjunctive ‘‘or’’ between the phrase ‘‘but the record does not reflect that the [AOJ] subsequently granted the claim in full’’ and the phrase ‘‘furnished the claimant with a[n SOC]’’ could cause confusion as to the possible situations under which the Board must remand a case pursuant to § 19.9(c). Taken literally, the use of the disjunctive ‘‘or’’ could lead to the misinterpretation that the Board is required to remand a case in situations where the AOJ has not granted the claim in full following the filing of an NOD, but where an Soc. issued. This outcome was not our intent in issuing proposed § 19.9(c). For obvious reasons, if an SOC has already been issued on a claim subsequent to the NOD, the Board would not be required to remand for issuance of another SOC. To avoid this incorrect construction, we have slightly reworded § 19.9(c) and replaced the disjunctive ‘‘or’’ with the conjunctive ‘‘and’’ to clarify that the Board will only be required to remand a claim to the AOJ for issuance of an SOC following the timely filing of an NOD when: (1) the AOJ has not subsequently granted the claim in full, and (2) the AOJ has not furnished the claimant with an SOC. We believe this minor revision more clearly describes when the Board will remand for issuance of an SOC pursuant to § 19.9(c)
  2. Hamslice I agree with everything you said. The having to do a freedom of information just to get a copy of exam report is crazy. I will be month before you even no what these places put in your record. I heard veterans are doing comp exam in hotel rooms. Get ex ray in parking lots. How could this be better for veterans I start my complaint yesterday wrote to veterans arm service committee yesterday. And vice president. I will be email congressman this week. I will be push all button on this place I even did the complaint to BBB look at all the veterans claims on there. Maybe ppl will wake up
  3. Everybody is in title to there opinion. I just got a call again from qtc tell me the doctor cancelled the exam. Because he could give a opinion on my record. So now it been send back to va. 4 month of this an still nothing done. There are a 1000 va hospital that have my record but I am sit here playing back in forth games. With a private company. Yea right. 6 billion dollar contract for what. To take money from the va system. Wake up ppl I will be doing everything in my power to complaint to Congress va bva president about this place and what it is doing to veterans. I am not the only one
  4. So I talk to the ppl at qtc told the doctor cancelled appointment. And is tell the va that they need a in person exam. Lol so now qtc and there provider can tell the va what they are going to do. I ain't even about to beef about this no more. They can just hold it. One day the board will get it back
  5. Man I am in fire I fought for 3 month to get this exam done. I call today to see if it was complete. Told the exam was cancelled and that I have to report to new exam they are not return it again. This is crazy Now I guess it never get return and I have to fight months again this is nuts. All my cavc remand issues are now just stuck. I will be doing a letter to a few Congressman the inspector general. I just call the white house hot line. There is no reason a va hospital can do this report. I don't have to go to the exam this was all done on purpose. Let me relax I ain't going to let this bullshit get me upset.
  6. Today I woke up In a good mood I feel I am getting to the end. I feel this Friday or next the court will rule. I have put everyone on notice the white house hot line. The bva. The court. My case was move from droc DC to Seattle droc. Congress liason has contact bva. I can't do no more lol. I got qtc to do the exam based on my record not in person as the remand stated. The exam on my record is to be done tomorrow. So now I can relax for a few weeks and see what fall from the tree after I hit it with a stick lol. Just venting again
  7. Everything you said was right but smc is also for lose of eye sight. I feel he could get smc l for help of other. I really don't no how he take care of himself that what smc l is for. Wife might help daughter son. A letter from them will get the smc l started.stating they help you. This is where the aid and attendance exam will be ordered. They will put it as an increase also for your condition. Also. That what they did to my smc claim and I with draw it. I did ask for and increase on any of my condition. I request smc it was remove by bva. There games. You have 18 year I would feel u should be ok with any reduction. That up to you tho. I am not go to lie I did wait till I had the 20 years before I apply for smc benfits did want to play any reduction games. I appeal to us court veterans appeals. I got my record there where 3 4 request for reduction. That were shot down before they were process. All of them stated protected on them. So I feel you. And with this new private company exam. Not goin to lie I would wait till 20 years if you can. But I did get smc s now I get smc l. I am still fighting the effective dates. And I am fight for smc o for two different condition smc l. My mental and loss of use. I have in home care plan which states socializing and to stop harm to self. Which is mental. Help with getting dress bathing etc. Is for loss of use. I state this because smc l and tdiu are the only thing. I ever seen were va will use the line this includes for all condition. Used to not break smc down in my opinion. I just wanted to give u the process.
  8. This is the 200 page response from the board to my petition for extraordinary relief. It came in mail in this big box. This what happens when your pro se at court. If you ever got to do a petition for extraordinary relief case pro se. Remember it's about the laws and regs va should have followed.
  9. Well today I got a call from the board The ladies was nice look over everything from the court remand To the bva remand to ro. Like I said everything should have been return to the board front of line. Cavc remand and advance on docket. Are treated this way She told me I shouldn't have been told to do a new form 9 which put me in a new docket an remove it from The cavc remand docket. This why it was return The other cavc remand for my effective dates. She couldn't even find anything In the system were I requested for them to be move from legacy 2018 to 2021 ama. She said I shouldn't have been told to nod again this is what cause it not to be return to board. Now the bad news she tell me once again that she got to send it to a higher level. But she did see the error. Well this make me at least feel better I ain't crazy y'all lol. Well qtc is to do the exam on my record the 17. After a 3 month fight. I got a call from bva after a 3 month fight. And I have been waiting 3 week now for a judge decision on my petition. Somebody goin to get this right. The fight continues But I feel I am getting closer now to the end
  10. I really think the va is try to make me die or be put in a nursing home. I get woke up today with a call from va again tell me they see the error but that have to send it to someone to look at. Why can't the person who is to fix the error call I am tired of va call center return call for bva and can't address nothing. This is the problem with not haven't a number to bva the ro can't even get respond now. This crazy. I have never seen a cavc remand treated this way. This has been 5 month of me try to get my cavc remand return to board in front of line. I now have a new 2021 appeal. 10100 and new 2021 appeal in ama. I really can't believe this. So I guess I go through 4 years alway to the court and get a remand. And now I got wait years for the cavc remand to get back to a judge because now I am 110000 and am waiting on a video hearing that I never requested. And my effective dates are now in the ama lane with a 2021 date. My only hope is the court petition because va not about to get this right I feel it. Two calls and each person see the problem but no one can address it. Smh. Oh they just send me a letter say I can ask for my appeal to be advance on docket. Lol. I am about to do it and send it to the chairman. Now in 2017 when this appeal started it was advance on docket. Now I got request it again if my cavc remand is not return to the board in the front of the line. Ok I just need to vent after that call. Lol
  11. Its great that imo help you win your case. And I am glad you had a lawyer at the cavc. But nothing you post has anything to do with what I posted. I you don't understand there no need to post. Like I said show me a law that say cavc remand are not to be returned to the front if the line.
  12. Yes I feel veterans should call more about this bva thing it will change. I feel the comp exam should go back to va hospital. You can't get copy of exam you will never no what is been put in to your record until you do a freedom of information. Crazy and how long does that take smh It's a lot of reductions of rating since the comp exams change.veterans are have 4 5 exam at these places. These are the to main one to me. Oh and this new va mail thing I get things from va 10 15 days after the date of letter. Is this not take dates away for a veteran to respond. It crazy. So now if you have 60 days u got 45 days. I think it been done with the hope of veterans missing deadline to me but Something is wrong it not the mail I get stuff from veterans court in two days.
  13. On January 29, 2021, the Court issued a memorandum decision under docket number 20-4110 which reversed a January 30, 2020 Board decision to the extent the Board found Petitioner’s October 2018 [sic] notice of disagreement (NOD) did not encompass the portion of a July 5, 2018 rating decision granting a 70 percent evaluation, but no higher, for a psychiatric disorder. The Court remanded the issue of entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 70 percent for a psychiatric disorder for further. The Court also set aside and remanded the portion of the Board decision that denied entitlement to higher levels of, and earlier effective dates for, special monthly compensation (SMC). Ok here is the remand order from bva to ro. A May 3, 2021 Board decision remanded the issues of entitlement to an earlier effective date for SMC housebound, entitlement to an earlier effective date for SMC based on the need for aid and attendance, and a higher SMC rate. The Board found that per the Court’s memorandum decision, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) should assign effective dates in the first instance. This is were the deem to denied started the board can't just change a remand order. , and found a higher SMC rate was intertwined with the remanded effective dates for the assigned SMC ratings. The Board also remanded the issue of an initial rating in excess of 70 percent for adjustment disorder with depressed mood for the AOJ to issue a statement of the case (SOC), as the Court had found a timely NOD had been filed for this issue. the court never stated to do this this how they were able to start a whole new appeal process for this issue On May 12, 2021, Petitioner was notified of a May 12, 2021 SOC which denied an initial evaluation of greater than 70 percent for adjustment disorder with depressed mood. Petitioner was notified he had to file a formal appeal via a VA Form 9, Appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, to complete his appeal as to that issue. Ok why wasn't it return to board why would you have to do a new form 9. I did one 2018 that started the appeal. Done to make me start a whole new appeal process. And change the docket. The AOJ created a separate record in VACOLS for the legacy appeal for an increased initial rating for adjustment disorder with depressed mood, reflecting the relevant procedural dates for that appeal of the August 2018 NOD, May 2021 SOC, and May 2021 VA Form 9. Due to administrative error, the AOJ did not certify or send the record for this appeal stream to the Board in VACOLS at the time the May 2021 VA Form 8 and notice letter were completed. See Exhibit Legacy appeal records can only be merged by the Board if they are actively assigned to the Board in VACOLS at the same time. And here is the end result. A printout of the VACOLS record shows the legacy appeal for an increased initial rating for adjustment disorder with depressed mood has been assigned docket number 21-00 585 and is awaiting assignment to a VLJ. See Exhibit M (previously cited in number 14). The Board, as required by law, will consider the appeal according to its place on the docket. Do you see it now an2021 docket 31. A printout of the Caseflow record shows that the modernized appeal based on the July 26, 2021 VA Form 10182 has been assigned docket number 210726-175126 and is awaiting assignment to a VLJ. See Exhibit Do you see that the effective dates are now in the new appeal system with a 2021 date. I post this to show ppl this is right. By law any cavc remand must be return to the board in front of line. If they change your docket. You now Wait year for a new appeal process It not legal. Cavc remand are to get. expidate treatment. Do you see that with the change of docket now they can tell you that you need to apply to advance it on docket. Well like I said I wait for the court to rule.
  14. All that but u still any show a law that say a cavc remand to bva. Make u start over the appeal process. Ok I think I stated that my docket was change from 2018 to 2021. I don't no if you are trying to confuse ppl or what. I do understand how advance on docket works. I was advance 2018 and was advance at the court 2021. And advance on docket 2004. All pro se Show me where it state a cavc remand to bva. Start over the whole appeal process. I don't think you can
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines