Mr cue

yes hurryup that is what i am saying so if i was grant 60% iu 2001 for my same 94 claim but they treated as if i reopen the claim. so by law my effective date is 94. well listen to this i get a call from amc again now my case was advance up the docket by the bva because of my hardships. and on the remaned it tell the amc to expidated my claim. the guy on phone tell me he need me to fax over the same papers that are with my claim showing my hardship. this is not part of the remaned and told me when he gets them he will maybe look at my claim. now iam going to fax papers again but i no a u no this is going to we never got papers i call 1800 and now they tell me they are waiting on these papers. why remaned never said this nothing and u got the paper they apart of my record. anyone every use brain higgins rep for a case and would this hole up thing. i would like to get deined than sit with this amc place. it all game in this place

man this is crazy i did a cue claim about a 94 claim. it gets to bva they dismissed the cue. because they say there can not be a cue of a claim that is still open and remaned the claim to amc to develop.here where it gets crazy 2001 i was granted 100% so by law my eef date is now 94 with the claim still been open. it just like i won the cue.but they remaned it to this dam amc they owe me a check. and u can not talk to any one. i did iris a month a go and got no resonpe and i did it with 1800 number. i got to somebody by one of the number on hadit and got a call back from a guy who told me why do i keep call they will look at my claim when they get a chance try to infro him of my case been advance up the docket due to my house. and on remaned it saids to expidated due to this do u no this man got loud with me tell me every thing got dismissed.i ask for his name he honk up on me. i dont want to go the crogressman route they say this can hold thing up but hell i am all ready at the hold with them. help please.

let me say yes no i done get ssi done have enough work credit yes i am talk 94-2001 i was pay 87.00 a month with two kid and a wife and va ratedme under someone with a gunshot all my records tell of my injury even spoke of how i was not working so try to live with 87.-00 would you not have bills and to answer your question did i get advance up the docket yes i did and now it at amc and i need my check to keep this house i got 1yr back pay 2000-2001 get it.

it crazy more to this story in 94 i was rated under 5322 which is for some one with a gunshot wound i have no gunshot so i put in a nod in 94 got ssoc had a rep than put in paper to appeal to board. never got anything i thought it was over. 2000 put paper in again they change my code to 5293 60% have not work since 94 i also got iu 2001. so to me there try to find a out call amc told them about hardship house been forclouse on my claim got advance up the docket due to this on remand it saids expidatid they told me someone will call me back. this is bull

yes my claim from 94 is still open that what bva say in the remaned i can understand 2001 i was granted 60% iu but they treated as if i had reopen my claim.put in cue found out claim still open so my 100% should be effective 94 but no check and nothing from amc but the 30day letter send back.

i put in a cue of a 94 decision july 09 i get the decision and it saids that there is no cue because my 94 claim is still open and was never certify to bva in 94 so there for there can not be a cue of a open case. so now here the thing 2001 i was granted 60% iu they treated it as if it was reopen the claim. i look at all laws and reg and it say they my 100% should be eef 94 . so now my claim is with amc which u can not talk to and 1800 tell me put in iris which i did 2 week ago asking why i done have a check. went to ro they tell me my folder due back nov. here the other thing i was advance up the docket with the bva due to my hardship and on the remaned it tell them to expidited the claim. this is crazy and to top it off i have no rep because she quit me because i did the cue claim. i was 10% in 94. with hadit i put in my own paper work and 2001 i was 100%. now i did this cue with the help of hadit and now look what i found out. thank for letting me vent i feel a little better. so what i am in there waiting game how do i get my check there is nothing to look at my case was won in 2001 100% it now eef 94 by law. i done feel like look up the law and posting. google eef date u will see. carlie i have been here a long time and i will like to say thanks to berta i hope i spell that right but u help me a lot back in 2000 i think i use to use james as my name than. u got me start and i follow your many posting you are the best rep. so what do i do or is this amc like some type of hold place for claims it like they have no number you can fax but how do u no they got the fax i fax paper to them but i have no way of geting a resonpe is this just me. dont no much about amc but that it in washington and it is there to help move claims faster. let me stop.

i put in my claim in 94 it was granted 10% i send nod but never got anything 2001 sumitted paper and was granted 100% in 2007 i put in a cue of 94 deicsion it went to bva and they say 94 decision was still open so there can not be a cue of a open claim they say 94 claim was never cretify to the board. so this mean my 2001 100% should be eef 94. they remanded it amc but to look at something that was denied. it state nothing about my eef what would u do. should i talk to finance. or send something to ro. 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.

this is the docket number 09-19 043 i want to thank u for the cases they help me under stand what is next i was granted one thing in 94and deined other. remaned only talk about the denied issue. i went 60%iu 2001 for the one that was granted 94. no i never got ssi i was in voc rehab 94 with 10% because my disabilty effected my work comp exam 94 stated i was not work and on soc for my cue ro stated i had not work since 94. 2001 comp exam doc say the likely hood of me working again is slim.

i put in claim 94 it was denied put in paper to continue my appeal never hear anything 2001 i sumitt papers and was award 60% iu eef 2001.i put in for a cue of 94 claim i went to bva. the bva denied it because it was still a open appeal that was never cretify to them. and remanded it to amc/ro my question and i can not find any in cfr for this. if my claim was still open from 94 should this be my eef for my 60%iu i was awarded in 2001. i never work since 94 va is a wear of this. can some help me find cfr or case that like this.

may be i am say this wrong i put in claim 94 was granted 10%send nod got soc i put in paper continue my appeal va never crefity my claim for the bva.2001 i sumitt paper and was grant 60%iu 2007 i put in a cue claim claim got dismiss and remaned because they say it a open appeal. i am lost this is the docket number 09-19 043

i am sorry for the two post head is every where here its in jan 05 within the one year appeal period form the denial of the claims filed a statement whih must be accepted as a substantive appeal on those issues his filing manifests an intent to continue his appeals resolving all doubt in the favor of the veteran this filing is equivalent of a va form 9 appeal to the board of veterans appeals and perfects the appeals on both issues.38 cfr$20.202. ro failed to certify the issues to the board, and the board has never taken any action on either issue the appeal remain open. the perfected appeal prevented the june 94 decision form becoming final. and in the remand it talk about vcaa it talk of dingess/nichlson court precedent any one no about this case and say expedited handling is requested. what do i do now

what do i do now if appeal was still open in 2001 they call it a reopen case i was granted 60% /iu 2001 so would this none mean when i did get the 60% in 2001 they should have when back to 94 see as i was still open and i like i won my appeal from 94 i am lost.

the bva dismiss the cue of my 94 decision. they say that i appeal my 94 decision but ro never certify my appeal so it could go to the board in 94 so my claim is still open.they remaned my question is 2001 they call it a reopen claim i was granted 60% iu. so why did ro use 2001 eef date.so i am lost now help me with this my cases is being expidate.

i was cueing a 94 deision i was remaned because i appeal the 94 decision but they never certifty my appeal with board so my 94 cases is stil open now i was granted 60% iu 2001 help me with this how can u grant this an not go back until 94 i need hep

this is the rating code i was rated 5322 i have no gunshot wound my med report say neck spasm this on my med 200 report this certria for 5293 which rated now 60% 10yrs of 5322 than change The functions of Muscle Group XXII are rotary and forward movements of the head, respiration, and deglutition. To warrant a 20 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 5322, the evidence must demonstrate moderately severe impairment to Muscle Group XXII. To warrant a 30 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 5322, severe impairment to Muscle Group XXII is required. 38 C.F.R. § 4.73. For a moderately severe muscle injury, 38 C.F.R. § 4.56 contemplates the following: (i) Type of injury. Through and through or deep penetrating wound by small high velocity missile or large low-velocity missile, with debridement, prolonged infection, or sloughing of soft parts, and intermuscular scarring. (ii) History and complaint. Service department record or other evidence showing hospitalization for a prolonged period for treatment of wound. Record of consistent complaint of cardinal signs and symptoms of muscle disability (loss of power, weakness, lowered threshold of fatigue, fatigue-pain, impairment of coordination and uncertainty of movement), if present, evidence of inability to keep up with work requirements. (iii) Objective findings. Entrance and (if present) exit scars indicating track of missile through one or more muscle groups. Indications on palpation of loss of deep fascia, muscle substance, or normal firm resistance of muscles compared with sound side. Tests of strength and endurance compared with sound side demonstrate positive evidence of impairment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.56(d)(3) (2002). Severe muscle injury under 38 C.F.R. § 4.56 encompasses the following: (i) Type of injury. Through and through or deep penetrating wound due to high-velocity missile, or large or multiple low velocity missiles, or with shattering bone fracture or open comminuted fracture with extensive debridement, prolonged infection, or sloughing of soft parts, intermuscular binding and scarring. (ii) History and complaint. Service department record or other evidence showing hospitalization for a prolonged period for treatment of wound. Record of consistent complaint of cardinal signs and symptoms of muscle disability (loss of power, weakness, lowered threshold of fatigue, fatigue-pain, impairment of coordination and uncertainty of movement), worse than those shown for moderately severe muscle injuries, and, if present, evidence of inability to keep up with work requirements. (iii) Objective findings. Ragged, depressed and adherent scars indicating wide damage to muscle groups in missile track. Palpation shows loss of deep fascia or muscle substance, or soft flabby muscles in wound area. Muscles swell and harden abnormally in contraction. Tests of strength, endurance, or coordinated movements compared with the corresponding muscles of the uninjured side indicate severe impairment of function 38 C.F.R. § 4.56(d)(4) (2002). If present, the following are also signs of severe muscle disability: (A) X-ray evidence of minute multiple scattered foreign bodies indicating intermuscular trauma and explosive effect of the missile. ( Adhesion of scar to one of the long bones, scapula, pelvic bones, sacrum or vertebrae, with epithelial sealing over the bone rather than true skin covering in an area where bone is normally protected by muscle. © Diminished muscle excitability to pulsed electrical current in electrodiagnostic tests. (D) Visible or measurable atrophy. (E) Adaptive contraction of an opposing group of muscles. (F) Atrophy of muscle groups not in the track of the missile, particularly of the trapezius and serratus in wounds of the shoulder girdle. (G) Induration or atrophy of an entire muscle following simple piercing by a projectile. 38 C.F.R. § 4.56(d)(4) (2002).

Belcher sought benefits for psychiatric disability. Belcher, 214 F.3d at 1335. He was entitled to a presumption of soundness, under 38 U.S.C. § 1111, supporting his claim that his psychiatric difficulties materialized while he was in service. The presumption of soundness, however, is overcome if the Secretary can demonstrate by clear and unmistakable evidence that the condition existed before entry into service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304( (2001). The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed the BVA's denial of service connection for his psychiatric disability on the ground that the Secretary had produced sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of soundness, relying on oral statements made by Belcher. However, Belcher may very well have succeeded at the Federal Circuit if he had raised the following argument on appeal at the lower courts, and you can raise this issue now: Belcher abandoned the factual issue that had been decided by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Instead, Belcher urged reversal based on a regulatory provision, 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(:D(3), not addressed by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, or argued to it. Belcher, 214 F.3d at 1336. That Sec. 3.304 regulation provides that signed statements against interest made by veterans in service related to the origin of disease or injury cannot be held against the veteran unless the statement is independently corroborated. In this court, Belcher argued that section 3.304(:)(3) should be interpreted to include oral statements, and that under such an interpretation the Secretary could not use Belcher's statements to overcome the presumption of regularity, see 214 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2000), http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/2...35.99-7172.html 38 USC 1111. Presumption of sound condition, provides that every veteran shall be taken to have been in sound condition when examined, accepted, and enrolled for service, except as to defects, infirmities, or disorders noted at the time of the examination, acceptance, and enrollment, or where clear and unmistakable evidence demonstrates that the injury or disease existed before acceptance and enrollment and was not aggravated by such service. Title 10, has similar provisions of law: 10 USC 1219. Statement of origin of disease or injury: limitations. A member of an armed force may not be required to sign a statement relating to the origin, incurrence, or aggravation of a disease or injury that he has. Any such statement against his interests, signed by a member, is invalid. (Added Pub. L. 85–56, title XXII, § 2201(31)(A), June 17, 1957, 71 Stat. 160; amended Pub. L. 87–651,title I, § 107©, Sept. 7, 1962, 76 Stat. 509.) Amendments 1962—Pub. L. 87–651 substituted "Statement of origin of disease or injury: limitation" for "Statement against interest void" in section catchline, and "A member of an armed force may not be required to sign a statement relating to the origin, incurrence, or aggravation of a disease or injury that he has. Any such statement against his interests, signed by a member, is invalid" for "No person in the Armed Forces may be required to sign a statement of any nature relating to the origin, incurrence, or aggravation of any disease or injury he may have. Any such statement against his own interest, whenever signed, is of no force and effect."

i done no how to put the link up but it is bva case dokect number 98-00 006 is about persumtion of soundness and was granted

may be i stated it wrong 94 was granted 10% 5322 put nod denied increase denied stated i do not met cretria no deep peranting wound. change 5322 cretria some time between 94-now.denied my elbow i fall on it er reports stated this bone chip found after fall on elbow. have lost some use of left hand. all part of record denied on a history i was to have give cfr stated a history give by a veterans is of no force. 2001 found hadit put in claim they change rating code 5293 60% iu. 94 it was part of the record that i was not working due to this comp exam 94 stated this. soc even state that i was and have not work since 94. has any one every use presumtion of soundness in a cue. as i put before take a look at the case i encluded and tell what u think

bva case dokect number 98-00 006 is about persumtion of soundness and was granted. and about checking something on enlistment.i was denied for a history i was to have giving on soc you gave ahistory you report that u had numbness and tingling in the ulnar nerve distribution as well as the middle finger.elbow had tenderness to palpation over the medial epicondyle. ex ray reveal a small bone chip off the medial epicondyle. tinsel was postive just proximal and medial to which reproduced systom in the hand.but i was denied for a history i never gave.cfr state u can not denied on a history give by a veteran. now for been rated 5322 this is for a gunshot wound when i when to increase i was denied because i dont have a deep penranting wound.2001 they change it to 5293 and granted me iu on soc u were rated under 5322 for slight limition of motion of the cervical spine the rater perhaps could have use code 5290 which would have been for limition of motion. is this not admitting the cue. so they see i could never increase been rated under 5322. 5293 change in 2004 i was rated this before the changes.

This is my motion to advance up the docket. My claim is now with the bva it was being expedited by the dro due to my hardship of my house being up for taxes foreclosure and that I am in a ch 13 bankruptcy I am asking to be move up the docket also due to my hardship. I have included copies of my bankruptcy papers and my foreclosure papers are with my claim. I believe there were many cue in my in 94 decision the first was in failing to apply the presumption of soundness. I was send to three different enlistment exams in response to checking I broke elbow when 12 yrs old every doctor stated that my elbow was healed. I had the fall and hurt my neck and elbow I had and ex ray and there was a bone chip found. None of the problem I had after the fall where noted at time of entry therefore the presumption of soundness therefore attaches and there for the VA must rebut with clear and unmistakable evidence. I believe the ro erred by failing to consider and discuss the statutory and regulatory provision pertaining to the presumption. I also believe I was denied on a history that I was to have given cfr states the statement of a veteran relating to the origin or incurrence of an injury made in service against there own interest is of no force and effect. So I believe this was a cue by denied me on statements I was to have given. And that u cue by not rebutting the presumption of soundness by clear and unmistakable evidence. For my neck I believe there was a cue there by rating me under rating code 5322 were I could never increase. I did not meet any of the criteria. I had no gunshot wound I had neck spasm in my neck med200 report stated this. This is the criteria for rating code 5293 which I am rated now. For 10 yrs I was rated 5322 10% with a disability that I could not work with on 94 comp exam stated this soc 2009 stated this. I had limitation of motion with my neck comp exam 94. But rated me under rating code 5322 criteria is deep pent ring wound mussel loss due to scar. Cfr states when there is two rating codes that could be use the veteran will be granted the higher. On soc 2009 prehap they could have used rating code 5290 which is for limitation of the neck is this not admitting a cue. $ 4.16( it is the established policy of the department of veteran’s affair that all veterans who are unable to secure and fellow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of a service-connected disabilities shall be rated totally disabled. I believe the ro fail to apply this to me. My 94 comp exam stated I was no working. Soc 2009 stated I was not working I have not work since the services I was in voc rehab with 10% because of an employment problems. My earned annual income did not exceed the amount established by the us department of commerce; my income was 87.00 a month. Ro did not even state any thing about how my disability affected my work in 94 decisions. And it was part of the record that I was not working. I believe anyone can see the many cue in my case and how they affect the outcome of my claim. the disability that I had then and now I believe I should get early effective date of 94 for my neck and Iu at rating code 5293 which I am rated now. And my elbow problem rated 94until now I have doc reports 94 until now which show the problems with my elbow & numbness in my hands. 94 comp exam tell of all the problems I had with my hand and elbow. But none of this was look at. I was not even look at for a pension.

no first time at bva i will look for lawyer real soon but i really feel i am my best lawyer i have real researh this. i no the laws i no the cfr number of the laws they cue . like 3.304 statment of a veteran. presumption of soundness . show that i had disabilty that stop me from work and was rated 10% and could not work this was in comp exam 94 so should have been $4.16 total disabililty rating did not meet % but should have been send to look at.i have bva cases like mines that were won doc num 98-00 -006. no i dont want hearing had one with dro waited for tracripts 7month and they still did not talk of the laws i say they cue. just gave soc were the laws were not on it.one line said presumtion of soudness.so no i dont want a hearing with them to gave them more time to play with my emotion. dro hearing are good won 60% iu at dro hearing. sorry so long just had to vent.

well vfw walk away the day of my dro hearing so i will go it alone aleast tell it go to court i w ill get lawyer than. vfw got mad becasue i sumitt my own paper i would give them paper and they would sumit paper once a month. i did not like that my case. i feel no one can do your claim better than u. 93 y did my rep not see this and call va on this so if i did not look in to this i would still be 10%. do your own home work is my way.

i post a number of times on my cue of a 93 claim so here it is in a nut shell i was granted 10% for musle strain of the left neck and denied for my elbow because i check that i broke when 12 on entry exam. and on my med 200 board exam i was to have gave a history of the problem i had and that i did not tell recruiter about problems. x ray 93 show bone chip on elbow.i had three different exam all stated elbow healed even recruiter exam doc check my elbow and stated healed. but there is no talk of these exam and they are part of th record. when they deined me they use statement i was to have say to denied.here it is. you gave a history of fracture of the left elbow at age 12 you reported intermittent symptoms of pain and tingling sensation prior to service. you reported you did not talk to recruiter about the problems you reported persistent symptoms in the same distribution. here the cue cfr3.304 states the statement of a veteran relating to the origin or incurrence of a desease or injury made in services against their own interest is of no force and effect if other data do not establish the fact.here is the other they rated my neck under 5322 here is the criteria through-and-through or deep penetrating wound of relatively short track by a single bullet or small shell or shrapnel wereto be at least moderate degree. i have no gunshot wound so when i to increase i was denied because i had no wound.2000 i found hadit and i was granted 60% and iu 2001-2004. so 94-2001 i was 10% rated wrong under 5322 they change it to 5293 2001. and elbow still not rated. on my soc the 94 comp exam stated you were not working because of these problems. so they gave me 10% and no pension or anything. is that a cue. soc the presumption of soundness was conceded as you were granted sevice connection for your neck.but the objetive evidence didnot show a premanent aggravation for your elbow. in 94 you were rated as a muslce strain left neck under code 5322 this was indicative of a moderate level of muscle disabilty with slight limitation of motion of the cervical spine. the rater could have prehaps used code 5290 which would have been for slight limition of motion as you would have still had only a 10% evaluation. so did they just say that there was a better rating code that should have been used is this the cue. i will fight on because i believe i was rated wrong and denied on statement i was to have say.i even have a bva case were the same thing was done docket no 98-00-006 check it out. so i believe i was send to bva because there is alot of wrong on my94 decision and a lot of retro.

LISTEN I WAS GIVE 10% IN 93-2004 AND RATED UNDER 5322 WHICH IS FOR MUSCLE LOST DUE TO GUNSHOT FOR 10YR I COULDNOT INCREASE DUE TO THIS.2004 AFTER FIND HADIT THEY CHANGE CODE GAVE ME 100% SO I HAVE NOT WORK SINCE 93 ON SOC IT STATES I WAS NOT WORKING .AND I WAS GIVE 10% FOR 10 YR.NO PENSION OR ANY THING SO NOW DO U GET MY CUE AND IF U CAN NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING THAN 9 TIME OUT OF 10 I DONT WANT YOUR ADVICES ANY WAY. LOL