Mr cue

ok here the new docket number 09-19-043 ok now if my claim was still from 94 and i put in paper 2000 and was granted 60% how is this not effective 94. isnt that law. got my letter for comp exam with physion assit please tell me how a pa is tell if i could have work in 94 bunch of bull i will fight to end.

yes amc is black hole my claim was remaned there it was to be expidated due to my hardships my claim was there 5month before i started looking for number to call i left messages. i talk to some team guy he look at my claim and say oh u are right this is to be expidated. needless to say i took 1 more month denied. when back to bva granted now back at amc and they are to handle my retro i been 3 week and not even a letter. so i guess i get my retro in 3 month. and its 94-2001. this is not right thank for letting me vent i am mad as ----.

iwas 10%for my neck 94 did paper 2000 was granted 60% for neck iu 2008 put in cue of 94 claim told there can not be a cue of and open claim.so shouldnt my 60%for my neck be effective 94.i get bva decision they granted me 20%94-2001. but how and remaned iu claim if i dont get 60% there going to denied iu claim right. it all a game. i have to go see a doc and he is to tell if i could work in 94 that crazy. i have not work since army. ssi earn report show this all my records show this. what am i to do. i just wrote my reconsideration letter i will post soon with docket number i need help can not find any cases were this happen. all i could find was this the non-adjudication of a claim expressly raised by the veteran. If the record shows veteran made a claim, which was simply overlooked and not decided by the VA, the claim is unadjudicated. That is it was never decided and it remains an open claim. If a veteran files a claim for the same benefit sometimes thereafter, normally by filing new and material evidence which reopens the claim, the effective date for this newly reopened claim relates back to the date of the filing of the prior, unadjudicated claim this sound like my cases and if i am read right my 60% should be effect 94.

i can not find any cases like minds need help

ok i am about to do my recondsideration of a bva claim now if my claim was never adjudated 94and then i was granted 60% for same issue in 2001. i did a cue claim 2008 bva say there can not be a cue of a open claim.now bva did my claim and granted me 20% how is that if i met the cretria for rating code for 60% in 94.or should my 60% effective date now be 94 they treated as a reopen claim in 2001. i see a game here if i dont get 60% i have a iu claim that was remand it go back to 94 if not 60% there going to denied. any body got a cases or something like that that my help. crazy part i still have not got my retro check for 40%-94-2001 this crazy and now my iu claim is back with amc. my claims is being expidated due to hardship. and no one to call crazy.

it crazy on remaned it say i have to see a doc to see if i was able to work 94-2001 and if doc feel i could have work what type of job. now u tell m this that 15 yr ago and this doc is to no if i could have work or not my comp exam 94 tell of me no working and as i said before my ssi earn report has nothing but oo for every year. this there game i no this going to the va courts i feel it now for 8 yr they did nothing with my claim and now tell how much i was hurt if i was granted 60% and this was a open claim is that like my 60% go back to than 94. how can u make up number when u already mesh up venting dont seem right but i am ready for them card up my sleeve. lol

i see and yes i met the 60% than 94 i have many va reports back than that show it ok i have not work since 94 was in voc rehab 10% employment handcap. had to withdraw 94 and 2000 from training due to condation now told not able to training. so if 20% neck 20% elbow that make me 40% from 94-2001 if not 60% can i still get my iu back than. i am going to wait i have 120 day for reconsidration to be in.one last thing on remaned i have to see a doc so that he can tell if i was able to work 94-2001 what va doc can tell this. so this is some type of game

ok than if my neck claim 94 was unadjcated it never became final than 2001 i put papers in ago to 60% than 94 is my effective date for 60% not 2001. "Clear and Unmistakable Error" - also commonly known as CUE - is a mechanism to reopen old claims by challenging "clear and unmistakable error" in a final VA decision. This procedural device is rarely used, and even more rarely successful. However, it is an enormously, beneficial remedy for the veteran when properly applied. The normal rule is a Rating Decision by the Regional Office becomes final and not appellable unless the veteran files a Notice of Disagreement within one year of the date of the Rating Decision. [See Appeal] If the veteran fails to appeal the Rating Decision, the veteran is bound by it. Whatever it has decided is binding. It is an "adjudicated" or final decision. The veteran can only avoid its effect by seeking to reopen the claim with new and material evidence or filing a CUE claim. The same is true with a decision by the Board of Veterans Appeals. In the event the veteran does not timely appeal a Board of Veterans Appeals' decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, the veteran is bound by it. [See Appeal] The purpose of the CUE claim is simple and straight forward. Like everything else in the VA claims process, it is extremely technical, and entirely dependent upon the facts involved. Its focus is to revise a finally decided claim because the final decision was based on "clear and unmistakable error". It may used against any Regional Office Rating Decision, or in most instances against any decision by the Board of Veterans Appeals. It, however, may not be used against claims twice decided by the Board of Veterans' Appeals, or by claims finally decided by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or the extremely improbable decision on a claim by the United States Supreme Court. The relevant regulations provide a CUE claim must: (1) clearly and specifically set forth in sufficient detail; (2) the alleged CUE of fact or law; (3) the legal or factual basis for such a claim; and, (4) why the result would have been "manifestly different", but for the alleged error." Unfortunately, the normal rules friendly to the veteran do not apply in a CUE claim. Specifically, this includes the following rules which do not apply: (1) the "benefit of the doubt" rule which mandates the veteran receive every benefit of the doubt in the development and review of his or her claim; (2) the "new and material evidence" rule which reopens a claim if the veteran supplies new and material evidence; (3) the VA's duty to develop the claim in so far as it must obtain records and provide the veteran notice; and, (4) the VA's general duty to assist the veteran in his or her making the claim. These rules, the heart of VA claims processes, do not apply. The focus of the CUE claim's review is not new evidence. In fact, new evidence is not admissible. Instead, the focus is on the evidence which was in the record, or which was in the possession of the VA but had not been placed into the record. The latter instance might include service medical records which had been misfiled or simply never properly retrieved by the VA in its development of the claim. While these records were not in the actual claim record, the records must have been in the possession of the VA though to be considered. The focus of the VA's review of the CUE claim is whether the alleged error actually occurred, and, even if it did, would the result have been "manifestly different". That is favorable to the veteran, but for the error. While a veteran may not challenge a final decision by a CUE claim based on the VA's alleged failure to develop the claim's file originally, or provide the veteran the appropriate notices required by the law, or any other failure in its duty to assist the veteran in making his claim, a CUE claim may be used to challenge the VA's failure to "sympathetically develop" a claim. However, this failure must be evident from a review of the actual record the claim was decided on, including other documents not in the claims' file, but which were in the possession of the VA at the time of the decision. This type of failure is most often focused on the VA's failure to develop the claim by broadly reviewing the evidence for all claims whether raised by the veteran or not. The VA's limited focus of reviewing the evidence failed its duty to broadly and sympathetically develop the entire range of available claims. That is, the VA missed a claim, although not raised by the specific language of the claim, which was raised by the evidence contained in the record. For instance, assume a veteran files a simple hand-written filled in form seeking relief for his headaches. While developing the record in the claim, evidence comes forward from whatever sources which shows veteran actually is suffering from several other maladies which appear potentially service-connected. Possibly a herniated disc in his cervical spine, and diabetes (and he is a Vietnam veteran with presumed exposure to Agent Orange). The VA must develop these claims. It must then also make a decision on them. In the event it does not, the claims remain unadjudicated claims. Another type of CUE claim is an attack on the effective date granted to a claim. This is often seen in either of two failures by the VA. The first is the non-adjudication of a claim expressly raised by the veteran. If the record shows veteran made a claim, which was simply overlooked and not decided by the VA, the claim is unadjudicated. That is it was never decided and it remains an open claim. If a veteran files a claim for the same benefit sometimes thereafter, normally by filing new and material evidence which reopens the claim, the effective date for this newly reopened claim relates back to the date of the filing of the prior, unadjudicated claim. The second is an offshoot of the CUE claim based on the VA's failure to sympathetically develop the claim as described above. If the VA had ignored a claim which had been raised by the evidence - and not raised by the veteran's actual claim - [as described above] the claim was and remains unadjudicated. As such, the claim is a pending, never-decided, non-final claim. If a veteran files a claim for the same benefit sometimes thereafter, the effective date for the new claim relates back to the date the evidence first existed in the prior unadjudicated claim's file. That is, although it is a new claim, since it is seeking benefits which are like the benefits the unadjudicated claim's benefits sought [or should have sought if the VA had developed the claim properly when it was raised by the evidence], its effective date relates back to the time when evidence existed in the record which triggered the VA's duty to sympathetically develop that prior claim. CUE claims can also be based on failures to follow the law in effect at the time of the original decision. This includes both regulations and statutes. CUE is a very rare, but extraordinarily powerful remedy when available. The key is knowing when and how to seek its unique relief. It rewards are - when available - significant.

if u dont remeber my claim please go to my need the big wigs posting it all there. any way i got my decision and my elbow was granted to 94-2001 20% and my neck 20% 94-2001 and my iu was remaned.but here my problem i cue the 94 decision bva say there can not be a cue of a open claim this when i found out that my claim from 94 was still open. 2001 i was award 60% for my neck with iu. so if my neck claim was open all that time and i won in 2001. shouldnt my neck 60% be effective date 94. has anyone every seen someone claim just sit there for all those years. i am going to put in reconsidration letter soon i think i need lawyer now anyone got one that might help with this. i been do my claim my self and they keep playing with me. i need a cases were this happen cant find one. i guess what i am ask can the big wigs come out and help me here.

i call thurs and was told my claim has been granted this guy just when on and on so i call back and was told its been granted letter send today ask what was granted she say i can not see that it just granted. ok call bva and was told it granted and letter send today. man i dont know what this guy was seeing. just venting hope letter do come mon

call bva today and was told to do this so bva can decided my claim i need more info before i do

i like to thank all the big wig for coming out lol i got a lot of info from the post has any one hear of waiving ro consideration so the bva will have to decided the cases with out all the remands readed this some where.

no paper i every send made it to amc on denied they say they rec nothing from me never had any treatment befoe army. it all a game 2001 i was granted 60% iu for my neck there is nothing about this. can bva grant befenits without it going back on remaned. they have 15 yr of evidence on denied nothing. say my elbow was preexisting condition checked i broke when 12 yr on enlistment they send me to 3 different exam everyone stated healed. had fall bone chip found on ex-ray nothing about this on denied or pass 94 rating. i am waiting for cases to make it back to bva before i raaise hell.once again if my 94 claim is still open and i was granted 60% iu 2001 so my effective date is now 94 it was my neck that when from 10% to 60%. i believe i won just as if there was a cue right.

this is my bva Citation Nr: 0928705 Decision Date: 07/31/09 Archive Date: 08/04

it on it way bck from amc they denied both from 94 saying there is no evidene. basically they never every look the my claimn because there is nothing about me being 60% iu now so i am wait until i get to bva before i raise hell. lol amc is a holding pen.

I would like to say that in the bva decision it saids that my claim from 94 was still open so my claim for and increase for my neck was won in 2001 when I was granted 60% iu so my effective date should be 94 . as the cfr and the law states. I have not work since 94 comp exam 94 states this soc 2007 and voc rehab reports in 94 states this. I would like this part of my case taking care of seen as this is a payment owe. My house is going up for taxes forclouser and my case has been move up the docket due to my hardship so I ask that this part of my case be taken care of. I had no treatment on my elbow before services I had no problem before services I checked that I broke my elbow when I was 12 yr old on enlistment sheet. I had 3 different enlistment exam and every doctor stated that my elbow was healed. I had the fall and there was a bone chip found on ex ray med 200 report stated there was tenderness where the bone chip was found. Comp exam 94 talk of all the problems I had and have with my elbow and hand I have over 15 year of report on my condition. Tell why I do not get the presumption of soundness which is stated by law or how u rebutted it u can not use statement I was to have made to denied me. The history that I was to have given on med 200 report 93. which is what is been done. there is no evidence that I had any problem before service . there was no treatment before either. So how is this not services connected or aggravated by. There is no more evidence to get I ask that my case on my elbow be done now and my payment for my neck and iu be pay as soon as possible so that I can save my house. I have not work since army. ss earning report show I have not work and don t have any work credits for ssd this is part of my record. all of my comp exam from 94 until now tell of how my disability effect my working all part of record or tell of me not working. My med 200 report from 1993 which was part of the record says neck spasm all my va hospital report from 94-2009 say neck spasms where did strain come from spasms are part of the rating code that I am rated now.if I was rated under a code for gunshots how can I every had increase look at the denied it say no increases because I don’t have a deep pentring wound. Your say that it all right for me to have been rated this way laws say if there is a problem with two rating codes the veteran will be given the higher well I believe I could increase with the right rating code. the non-adjudication of a claim expressly raised by the veteran. If the record shows veteran made a claim, which was simply overlooked and not decided by the VA, the claim is unadjudicated. That is it was never decided and it remains an open claim. If a veteran files a claim for the same benefit sometimes thereafter, normally by filing new and material evidence which reopens the claim, the effective date for this newly reopened claim relates back to the date of the filing of the prior, unadjudicated claim if there is a remaned I ask that It be done at my va ro office that held my claim. And not the appeals management center. Nothing I send makes it to them. Please.

i am trying to explain 94 granted 10% put nod got soc did everything to appeal never went to board i never no this 2001 put more paper in thet reopen granted me 60% iu. i did cue of 94 claim bva say there can not be a cue of a still open claim. remaned it to amc. on remaned on denied from amc no saying that my case was won in 2001 it like there doing the playing or something i had arep 94 should he told me or when i was granted 2001 should they have no that my claim never went to thhe board.

i got hurt in army i was 22 i have not work since i apply for ssd and was told i dont have work credits so now that my claim for m 94 is still open i will use 94 as my date to get ssd now i should have no problem with work credits but one fight at a time .

philp never thought of that once i finsch this race i will get at that because i was denied 2001 they should have use 94 see what u learn on hadit. lol but look at this. got it from some lawyer for veterans site but i am using this right to after them with. the non-adjudication of a claim expressly raised by the veteran. If the record shows veteran made a claim, which was simply overlooked and not decided by the VA, the claim is unadjudicated. That is it was never decided and it remains an open claim. If a veteran files a claim for the same benefit sometimes thereafter, normally by filing new and material evidence which reopens the claim, the effective date for this newly reopened claim relates back to the date of the filing of the prior, unadjudicated claim

i never got ssi i done have ant work credits i have no ss earning i was 22 than now 40 never work been going bak and froth to va for all those years all comp exam say i was not working due to injury and likelyhood of working is slim this was 2001 iu claim.

i have not work since army 94 it part of record i was in voc rehab with 10% u must have a employment problem i just need a case where this happen so i can see how this works

ok any one every seen something like this i cant find a case where this happen it would seem as if my case from 94 was open and in 2001 when i sumitted papers and granted 60% iu that my effective date should be 94 not 2001 right need help here i am lost.

ok i was 10% from 94 until 2001 when i put in my own paper i was granted 60%iu because i had not work since 94. i did a cue of my 94 claim and the bva say there can not be a cue of a claim that is still open. so remaned it to amc that whole story but i got the denied from amc say it on the way back to board. call vba today was told it in transit. ok now if my claim from 94 is still open than that means my eef date should be 94 for my 60% iu right i look at laws anyone every since any thing like this.

ok here it is my case was remaned to amc because my claim form 94 was found to be still open. i keep calling number i found on hadit to the amc and i finally got denied. it go back to the bva. i think this is a good thing because u can not talk with any one at the amc. i send them paper and on denied it say they never rec. i have not miss one paper in this long trail of bull and i could not even find out if they rec them when u mail or fax. ok now here it is 2001 i was given 60% iu they treated it as if i had reopen my claim. i did a cue it when to bva. they say there can not be a cue of a claim that is still open. so remaned it to amc so if my claim was always open they mean my eef date is 94 for my 60% iu. it dont take all this no one say they i was granted 100% they are acting as if were talking something else. well it say my claim will be back at borard in 30 days then i an talk to someone no i dont have a rep. did it with hadit.so any one that cases go to amc keep calling number keep at them until they do something becasue it been 4 month and i could no talk to anyone call bva they say they have no right on my claim onceit with amc that bull u send it there. y not my ro were i could talk with some one they owe me and now i am straight mad when this is over i will make it my life work to make sure every vet i no with problem. i help get what is theres o all that say anyone have a case where a claim was open and ro never crefity and appeal so it could go to bva that what happen to me i appeal in 94 va never send it to the bva so my claim was just there until 2001 when i did it with haidt became 60% iu. va mess up period.