Mr cue

i am base my cue on these laws may help others Decision Date: 04/21/06 Archive Date: 04/26/06 DOCKET NO. 04-20 537 ) DATE ) ) THE ISSUE Whether a January 1986 decision of the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) denying service connection for a back disability should be revised or reversed on the basis of clear and unmistakable error (CUE). (Additional issues involving appeals for higher initial evaluations for a postoperative discectomy at L3 - L4 and L5 - S1, polyradiculopathy of the right lower extremity associated with the postoperative discectomy at L3 - L4 and L5 -S1, and a mood disorder associated with the postoperative discectomy at L3-L4 and L5 - S1, and appeals for earlier effective dates for the grants of service connection for each of these disorders will be the subject of a separate remand.) REPRESENTATION Moving party represented by: Darla J. Lilley, Attorney at Law ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Parakkal, Senior Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from August 1972 to May 1974, followed by Reserve service which involved periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and inactive duty training (INACDUTRA). A period of INACDUTRA from May 1, 1982, to May 2, 1982, is verified. This matter is before the Board for review of a motion filed by the veteran pursuant to 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109A and 7111 (West 2002) for revision or reversal, on the basis of CUE, of a January 1986 Board decision which denied service connection for residuals of a back injury claimed as postoperative residuals of a discectomy at L3-L4. The case was before the Board in January 1986 on appeal from a May 1985 rating decision by the Indianapolis, Indiana, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) which found that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the claim for service connection for a back disability following a prior final denial of service connection by the Board in November 1983. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A November 1983 Board decision denied service connection for residuals of a postoperative discectomy at L3-L4. 2. In January 1986, the Board found that the previously denied claim of service connection for a low back disability had been reopened by submission of new and material evidence but determined that the evidence of record did not establish a new factual basis for granting service connection. 3. Of record before the Board in January 1986 was a March 1985 service department investigation report which determined that the veteran sustained a back injury on May 1, 1982, in the line of duty. 4. Evidence on file at the time of the Board's January 1986 decision undebatably shows that the inservice back injury during INACDUTRA was productive of disability. 5. The January 1986 Board decision involved misapplication of the law or VA regulation to the extent that it did not accept the March 1985 investigation report as binding on VA, and the misapplication of law resulted in an undebatably incorrect decision. CONCLUSION OF LAW The January 1986 Board decision denying service connection for a back disability is clearly and unmistakably erroneous. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109A, 7111 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1403 (2005). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Duties To Notify And Assist The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) emphasized VA's obligation to notify claimants as to what information or evidence is needed in order to substantiate a claim, and it affirmed VA's duty to assist claimants by making reasonable efforts to get the evidence needed. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A and 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a) (2005); see Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183, 187 (2002). VCAA is not applicable to requests for revision of a final decision based on CUE because that matter involves an inquiry based upon the evidence of record at the time of the decision, not based upon the development of new evidence. Livesay v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 165, 178-79 (2001); VAOPGCPREC 12-2001 at para. 7 (July 6, 2001) (VA does not have "a duty to develop" a CUE case because "there is nothing further that could be developed"); see also Livesay v. Principi, 14 Vet. App. 324, 326 (2001). Legal Criteria Before November 21, 1997, a claimant was precluded by law from collaterally attacking a prior final Board decision by alleging CUE in either the Board's decision or in a rating decision that was subsumed in that decision. Smith v. Brown, 35 F.3d, 1516 (Fed. Cir. 1994). However, such challenges have been permitted since November 21, 1997, the date of enactment of Pub. L. No. 105-111, 111 Stat. 2271. The statutory authority for the revision of Board decisions on the basis of CUE granted by Public Law No. 105-111 is found in 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109A (a) and 7111 (West 2002) which codified, without substantive change, the existing regulation, 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a), providing for revision of RO decisions on the basis of CUE. Donovan v. West, 158 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Dittrich v. West, 163 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed Cir. 1998). The Board has original jurisdiction to determine whether CUE exists in a prior final Board decision. Such review may be initiated by the Board on its own motion or by a party to the decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1400 (2005). Rule 1403 of the Board's Rules of Practice, found at 38 C.F.R. § 20.1403 (2005), defines what does and does not constitute CUE. The regulation provides as follows: (a) General. Clear and unmistakable error is a very specific and rare kind of error. It is the kind of error, of fact or of law, that when called to the attention of later reviewers compels the conclusion, to which reasonable minds could not differ, that the result would have been manifestly different but for the error. Generally, either the correct facts, as they were known at the time, were not before the Board, or the statutory and regulatory provisions extant at the time were incorrectly applied. (:D Record to be reviewed.--(1) General. Review for clear and unmistakable error in a prior Board decision must be based on the record and the law that existed when that decision was made; (2) [Omitted] © Errors that constitute clear and unmistakable error. To warrant revision of a Board decision on the grounds of clear and unmistakable error, there must have been an error in the Board's adjudication of the appeal which, had it not been made, would have manifestly changed the outcome when it was made. If it is not absolutely clear that a different result would have ensued, the error complained of cannot be clear and unmistakable. (d) Examples of situations that are not clear and unmistakable error -- (1) Changed diagnosis. A new medical diagnosis that "corrects" an earlier diagnosis considered in a Board decision. (2) Duty to assist. The Secretary's failure to fulfill the duty to assist. (3) Evaluation of evidence. A disagreement as to how the facts were weighed or evaluated. (e) Change in interpretation. Clear and unmistakable error does not include the otherwise correct application of a statute or regulation where, subsequent to the Board decision challenged, there has been a change in the interpretation of the statute or regulation. (Authority: 38 U.S.C.A. § 501(a), 7111 (West 2002)). The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has consistently stressed the rigorous nature of the concept of CUE, stating that "[c]lear and unmistakable error is an administrative failure to apply the correct statutory and regulatory provisions to the correct and relevant facts; it is not mere misinterpretation of facts." Oppenheimer v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 370, 372 (1991). CUE denotes "errors that are undebatable, so that it can be said that reasonable minds could only conclude that the original decision was fatally flawed at the time it was made." Russell v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 310, 313 (1992). "It must always be remembered that [CUE] is a very specific and rare kind of 'error.'" Fugo v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 40, 43 (1993). A disagreement with how the Board evaluated the facts is inadequate to raise the claim of CUE. Luallen v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 92, 95 (1995). A finding of CUE "must be based on the record and the law that existed at the time of the prior . . . decision." Russell v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 310, 313-14 (1992). Subsequently developed evidence may not be considered in determining whether error existed in the prior decision. Porter v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 233, 235-36 (1993). The mere misinterpretation of facts does not constitute CUE. Thompson v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 251, 253 (1991). Moreover, the error must be one which would have manifestly changed the outcome at the time that it was made. Kinnaman v. Derwinski, 4 Vet. App. 20, 26 (1993). "It is a kind of error, of fact or of law, that when called to the attention of later reviewers, compels the conclusion, to which reasonable minds cannot differ, that the results would have been manifestly different but for the error." Fugo v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 40, 43 (1993). When a claim is disallowed by the Board, it may not thereafter be reopened and allowed, and no claim based on the same factual basis shall be considered; however, where subsequent to disallowance of a claim, new and material evidence in the form of official reports from the proper service department is secured, the Board may authorize the reopening of the claim and review of the former decision. 38 U.S.C. § 4004(:) (1982). When a claimant requests that a claim be reopened after an appellate decision and submits evidence in support thereof, a determination as to whether such evidence is new and material must be made, and if it is, whether it provides a new factual basis for allowing the claim. An adverse determination as to either question is appealable. 38 C.F.R. § 19.194 (1985). Service connection may be established for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101(24), 106, 331, 337 (1982). "The term 'active military, naval, or air service' includes active duty, any period of active duty for training during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty, and any period of inactive duty for training during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from an injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty." 38 U.S.C. § 101(24) (1982). A preexisting injury or disease will be considered to have been aggravated by active service, where there is an increase in disability during such service, unless there is a specific finding that the increase in disability is due to the natural progress of the disease. 38 U.S.C. § 353 (1982); 38 C.F.R. § 3.306(a) (1985). Certain evidentiary presumptions, such as the presumption of sound condition at entrance to service, are provided by law to assist veterans in establishing service connection for a disability or disabilities. See 38 U.S.C. § 311 (1982); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(B) (1985). Thus, the advantages of these evidentiary presumptions do not extend to those who claim service connection based on a period of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA. "In line of duty" means an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated during a period of active military, naval or air service unless such injury or disease was the result of the veteran's own willful misconduct. A service department finding that injury, disease or death occurred in line of duty will be binding on the Veterans Administration unless it is patently inconsistent with the requirements of the laws administered by the Veterans Administration. Requirements as to line of duty are not met if at the time the injury was suffered or disease contracted, the veteran was: (1) Avoiding duty by desertion, or was absent without leave which materially interfered with the performance of military duty. (2) Confined under a sentence of court- martial involving an unremitted dishonorable discharge. (3) Confined under sentence of a civil court for a felony as determined under the laws of the jurisdiction where the person was convicted by such court. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(m) (1985). Factual Background The veteran's service medical records from his period of active duty from August 1972 to May 1974 are negative for complaints or findings related to the back. Army Reserve examination reports, dated in April 1976 and February 1978, reflect that the veteran's spine was normal. An April 1982 quadrennial examination report reflects that the spine was normal on evaluation. In addition, it was specifically noted that, with respect to the spine, he was not in pain; his reflexes were good; and he did not have sensory motor loss. On an associated medical history form, it was reported that he had a "slipped disc" and degenerative back disease four years earlier that had been treated with traction. Back pain, left leg numbness, and sciatica were noted as having cleared. It was noted he had some back pain during active duty but had recovered. The diagnosis was a questionable herniated nucleus pulposus (HNP) in the past, recovered with traction, with no interference with work or duty presently. Records from the emergency room of the Johnson County Hospital show that the veteran was seen on May 2, 1982, after twisting his right knee during training. Records from the Hendricks County Hospital dated in July 1982 show that the veteran reported a six-year history of low back difficulties. The veteran reported having been followed for low back pain following a 1976 motorcycle accident. It was noted he had experienced an increase in pain in the previous six to 12 months despite conservative therapy. A computerized tomography (CT) scan in July 1982 showed central disc herniation to the right at the level of L3-L4 with impingement on the neural root. The attack that led to the admission had begun the prior Friday and was not associated with any injury. Surgery consisting of laminectomy at L3-L4 on the right with excision of the disc was performed. The final diagnosis was a HNP at L3-L4 on the right. In an August 1982 statement, G. B., M.D., expressed the conclusion that the veteran's back problem was either caused by or exacerbated by military duty. Received in support of the veteran's August 1982 claim for service connection for a back disorder were statements dated in January and February 1983 from four individuals who served with the veteran in May 1982 and who related that the veteran had experienced back pain during a tactical exercise. During an October 1982 VA compensation examination, the veteran reported that he slipped and fell down a hill during maneuvers. The following day, he said, he was brought to the hospital. The diagnoses included an injury to the lower back and a postoperative discectomy at L3-L4 level with residuals of slight narrowing of the L3-L4 disc spaces. At a February 1983 RO hearing, the veteran testified he slipped in the mud and experienced considerable back pain with radiation of pain running down his right leg in an incident in May 1982. The foregoing documents were of record before the Board in November 1983, at which time the Board entered decision denying service connection for residuals of a back injury. The Board found that the evidence did not establish that the veteran's HNP was related to an injury in service. A request to reopen the claim for service connection was received on February 17, 1984. The following evidence was received thereafter. A DA Form 2173, Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status, dated in May 1982 indicated that the veteran had twisted his knee while on maneuvers on May 2, 1982, during INACDUTRA. A February 1984 Reserve examination report shows that the veteran had undergone disc surgery in July 1982 which had not relieved his symptoms and that further disc surgery was contemplated. The diagnosis was recurrent disc disease at L- 5 with previous surgery at L3-L4 with no relief of symptoms. It was noted he was not qualified for duty. The veteran testified at a July 1984 RO hearing that when he was examined at a private hospital after a fall in May 1982 he complained of back pain but only the right knee was examined. He related that at the Johnson County Hospital he experienced severe pain that extended down to his buttocks and leg. He asserted that he had fully recovered after his 1976 motorcycle accident. At the hearing he submitted statements from nine service comrades which were to the effect that the veteran had complained of back and leg pain after falling. Several of the individuals had seen the veteran fall and stated that he complained of pain. One of the individuals stated he had seen the veteran at the dispensary, where his complaints had included back pain. In a March 1984 statement, a senior medical specialist indicated that she had seen the veteran when he presented for treatment on May 2, 1982. She related that he complained of back and leg injuries. She said that he had just fallen during a military training exercise and was experiencing leg and back pain. It was noted that the veteran's complaints appeared to be legitimate and that he was referred to a physician at Johnson County Memorial Hospital for examination of his back and leg. It was noted that, although he was referred for examination of the back and leg, he was apparently only examined for his injured leg. Additional service department records were received. A formal line of duty investigation was completed in March 1985 wherein it was reported that the veteran had sustained knee and back injuries as a result of falling down an embankment during a period of INACDUTRA (a weekend drill) on May 1, and May 2, 1982. It was reported that at the time of the injury the veteran had been taken to the hospital, where he complained of severe back and knee pain but was treated only for a sprained knee. Several witnesses were reported to have supported the claim. It was reported that the veteran had undergone an examination one month before the injury, in April 1982, and had been cleared for duty, and had later undergone back surgery in August 1982. The back injury was found to have been in line of duty. The veteran underwent a service department Medical Board examination in April 1985. He complained of low back pain, and it was noted that his history dated back to when he injured his back on a training exercise in May 1982. At that time, he was taken to a hospital where he was treated for knee not back problems. It was reported that he returned home still complaining of severe back pain. He said he was seen by his family doctor who put him on bedrest. The pain did not abate and he was hospitalized and placed in traction in June 1982. A myelogram was negative, but CT studies showed a bulge at L-3 and L-4. In July 1982, he underwent a L3-L4 laminectomy and discectomy. He continued to have progressive problems on an intermittent basis and underwent numerous hospitalizations over the next year. In October 1983, the veteran was found to have an L-5- S-2 HNP on a CT scan. He underwent a L-5, S-1 laminectomy and discectomy on the right side. He continued to have intermittent problems since that time especially with muscle spasm and leg pain. He had been unable to do his military duty in the usual manner. Following an examination, it was determined that he was unable to perform military duty due to low back pain. The veteran was discharged from the Reserves in August 1985. Analysis The law in effect at the time of the Board's January 1986 decision, like the law in effect now, provided that determinations by the Board of Veterans Appeals were final as to the evidence then of record but that a previously disallowed claim could be reopened by submission of new and material evidence. Service connection could then be awarded if the evidence of record was deemed to provide a new factual basis for an allowance of the reopened claim. In the present case, the stated basis for the Board's January 1986 denial of service connection was that no new factual basis for an award of service connection had been found. The decision did not articulate a finding that new and material evidence had been presented, but such a finding is implicit in the Board's repeated characterization of the claim as a "reopened" claim, to include in its Conclusion of Law. Consequently, a finding of CUE in the January 1986 decision would result in an allowance of service connection rather than a mere reopening of the claim previously denied by the Board in 1983. To establish CUE in the Board's January 1986 decision, it must be shown that the correct facts, as they were known at the time, were not before the adjudicators or that the law in effect at that time was incorrectly applied. The error must be undebatable and of a sort which, had it not been made, would have manifestly changed the outcome of the decision at the time it was made. Russell, 3 Vet. App. at 313; Fugo, 6 Vet. App. at 43. The Board indicated in its January 1986 decision that it was unable to conclude that either the veteran's back disability was the direct result of an injury during INACDUTRA or that a preexisting back disability was aggravated by injury during INACDUTRA. The focus of the Board's decision was analyzing whether the veteran sustained a back injury during INACDUTRA, as he had alleged. The veteran argues that the January 1986 Board decision was erroneous as 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(m), regarding line of duty determinations, was not properly applied. See also Gonzales v. Brown, 15 Vet. App. 387 (1997) (unpublished Memorandum decision); Kinnaman v. Principi, 4 Vet. App. 20 (1993). It is also argued that the Board denied the veteran the benefit of the statutory presumptions of soundness at the time of entering service and of aggravation of a preservice disability during service. With regard to the veteran's first argument, the Board did indeed fail to properly apply 38 C.F.R. § 3.1 (m) in its January 1986 decision. The wording of 38 C.F.R. § 3.1 (m) (1985) gives VA little leeway to look behind a service department determination. The regulation is explicit in making service department line of duty determinations binding on VA unless certain narrow circumstances are present such as desertion, dishonorable discharge or criminal activity, or unless a finding of service incurrence is "patently inconsistent" with the requirements of laws administered by VA. VA regulations do not define the circumstances in which a finding of service incurrence would be "patently inconsistent" with VA law. In the absence of clear regulatory authority or judicial clarification of the phrase, the Board is unwilling to take the position that a disagreement with the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the service department determination was based by itself renders that determination patently inconsistent with VA law. The Board's conclusion that the March 1985 line of duty determination was inconsistent with the medical records and reflected recent allegations by the veteran may be correct, but it is also true that the service department conducted its own investigation and that its determination was also supported by substantial evidence, albeit some of which consisted of lay statements that had also been presented to VA. It cannot be determined whether the investigator may have had access to information not available to VA or whether the service department record was substantially the same as VA's. In either case, the service department was satisfied that the available evidence was sufficient to establish that a back injury did in fact occur on May 2, 1982, under the circumstances reported by the veteran, and the presence of conflicting evidence in the VA file was not, in and of itself, sufficient grounds to reject the service department findings. Therefore, the service department finding that the veteran sustained a back injury in service in the line of duty, in addition to being evidence to support the veteran's service connection claim, was binding on VA as a matter of law. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(m) (1985). Now, the question becomes whether the Board's failure to properly apply 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(m) was outcome determinative. In other words, if the Board had properly applied 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(m) in its January 1986 decision, would the claim of service connection for a low back disability have been granted given evidence establishing that the injury in service was productive of disability? Shedden v. Principi, 381 F. 3d. 1162, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (despite the presumption that a disease or injury was incurred during active duty, a veteran seeking compensation must still show the existence of a present disability and that there is a causal relationship between the present disability and the particular event or circumstance that gave rise to the in- service injury.) The Board will first address whether the veteran had a back disability prior to his May 2, 1982, injury during INACDUTRA. The record reflects that the veteran indicated he was involved in a motorcycle accident in 1976. See generally July 1982 Hendricks County hospital records. Records related to the 1976 motorcycle accident were not on file at the time of the Board's January 1986 decision. Subsequently dated evidence to include Reserve examinations in April 1976, February 1978, and April 1982, all consistently demonstrated that his spine was normal following the 1976 accident. Notably, on the April 1982 Reserve examination, a history of a HNP and degenerative problems were noted, but it was also noted that he had recovered and that there was no interference with work or duty. In sum, all the competent medical evidence on file clearly and undebatably established that any preservice back condition had resolved prior to the May 2, 1982, injury during INACDUTRA. Although the veteran was not entitled to the statutory presumption of soundness given his INACDUTRA status, the Board, in its January 1986 decision, should have nevertheless determined that his preservice back condition had resolved given the uncontradicted and consistent objective evidence of a normal spine prior to his INACDUTRA service in May 1982. The record shows that the veteran injured his knee and back when he fell down a hill on May 1982 during INACDUTRA. He sought medical treatment for both his injuries but was only treated for his knee. A line of duty determination is on file which reflects that he did indeed injure his back on May 2, 1982, during INACDUTRA. This determination is binding on VA. Specific medical nexus evidence regarding whether the injury during INACDUTRA was productive of disability includes an April 1985 Medical Board examination report. The April 1985 examiner observed that the veteran's history of back problems dated back to an injury on a training exercise in May 1982. Following a physical examination, it was determined that he was unable to perform military duty due to low back pain and he was discharged from the Reserves because of such. Similarly, an August 1982 statement from a private examiner reflects that the veteran's back disability is related to service. Both opinions clearly support the veteran's claim of service connection as they clearly attribute his back disability to his inservice back injury during INACDUTRA. There is no objective medical evidence which suggests that the back injury in service was not productive of disability. In sum, the Board committed error by failing to properly consider the line of duty determination, which found that the veteran had sustained a back injury during INACDUTRA, as binding and failing to consider that the inservice injury was productive of disability, ultimately requiring his separation from service. Whether the veteran had a back disability from a motorcycle accident or other incident prior to the May 2, 1982, injury is essentially irrelevant as the evidence clearly and unmistakably shows that the inservice injury, alone, was disabling. Given the aforementioned, it is concluded that the Board's January 1986 decision, denying service connection for a back disability, was the product of CUE. ORDER The motion for revision or reversal of the January 1986 decision of the Board on the basis of CUE is granted.

yes they use the wrong dc for my neck and i am now 100%for neck but 2000 when i reopen it. i had the same syptom in 93 but was rated under the 5322 for gun shot wounds.so if they cue 93 does my 100% eed change from 2000 to 93 because i should have been rated the same as now. isnt a cue away to get eed

they call it a pre exiting condition and did not rate it at all it was they way of put all of my never damage with my elbow and say that i had this before services. that were they use the false statement that i did not tell recuitor of my condition.but as i said isnt there a reg&law that say u cannot use a statement made by a veteran to deined benfits without med proof. that was a cue right.

i have arep but they do nothing i got the denid and he was at hearing i did all talking because he did not no what a cue was or should i say he did not no much about reg &laws.i did my claim that i won he tell me give me your papers and i will turn them in i get faster results take them my self.i had one that told me he was no put a claim in for iu because they will not grant it why would so one who working to help vets stop vets there part of the problem some not all. wow venting again from what i under stand if hardship can be shown like bankructy or forclouser on a home va is sopposed to expidated claims.

sorry so long but had to let it out

here it is in a nut shell i had a fall and hurt my neck and elbow this doumount in my army reports on my enrty exam with all the check if u had on it i check that i broke elbow when 12 i was 22 in the army when i had the fall after fall i was put out of army with all of these limition the same i have now which was part of the record at that time. i when to med 200 exam in army got that report and doc states i told him i had problem with my hands and elbow before army and i did not tell recuitor before army this is all false i have the recuitor exam with me and recuitor names on it were i checked i broke elbow when 12 it was part of my record now i had three different exam for army were doc stated elbow healed no problem even qual airborne. was part of record now i got my records from army it was apaper were u agree with this and i never got it and its in my records unsigned.so i was denid for all my nerve damge in 93 which comp doc stated army stated but i was granted 10%under 5322 which is for some with a gunshot wound.i found hadit in 2000 and reopen claim i have never work after army 93 i was in voc rehab since 93 i had to keep dropin out due to my disabilty which means i was in because i had a serious employment hadcap to be in with 10% well 2000 i had mri and all these study and i have left c7c8 cervical radiculopathy and left sensory polyneuropathy. i was grant 60% with iu but with 2000 eed. i had these same problems and they put these with my elbow in 93 and denied me for that false statement which is on all denied form 93 that i say i had problem and never told recuitor. there is a reg i dont have them in front of me but it states a statement made by a veteran can not be use to denied benfits with out medical proof that was one of the cue they did and presumtion of soundness is the other cue and in th line of duty is the other i found a cue that was granted were they did the same thing to a veteran for making a check on your entry exam on comp exam in 93 say that i have the same condition as rated now but do to problems veterans stated about. i never made one statement i was young a did not no was going on. sorry just had to vent some but i was rated 5322 10%in 93 when i put in for incresase denied no deep pentring wound. i had no wound so 2000 i was granted 5932 which is for my condition. in 93 is there a reg where veteran is two get higher of two or when there is a problem rating codes. so in 93 i was getting 80.00 a month with no pension which i quifty for no nothing they 2000 when i found hadit thank you i am 100%p/t iu but what about 93 until 2000 i believe they owe me so i put in the cue for all this had the hearing in may told of all laws and regs and than i get a denied that did not have one law or reg i stated at hearing so now its is with the dro i ask for a hearing with him no and i got nothing as of now. i lost wife back than what 21 yr old women want to help here man do things and there 80.00 amonth two kids sorry venting again well thank you all and so do any one no how long dro take in buffalo and what does this hard ship do .

i have a cue claim had hearing in may 07 was well prepare thank to hadit told all law an reg that i no they cue i get the decision in oct07 and not one word of hearing or the law and reg i say that cue and how it would have made a differents if not for this cue.i put in my house forcoluser paper as hardship back in may and put them in oct when i elected dro so my thing is that i use iris and got a response say its with dro dec 1 and that they were email my hardship claim so any one no how long dro last a buffalo varo and i ask for hearing with him. what else can i do when that just gave me a decision that was a bunch of nothing and that even talk about that last rater was most ganrish to me. how hell is a person ganrish when i was hurt.

i have acue that is on this subjet and presumtion of soundeness and in the line of duty and a statement made by a veteran can not be use to denied a claim.are a few reg and law i use in my cue. i also was deined for an injury to my elbow because i checked i broke it on entry exam and recuitor exam when i was 12yr old each doc on each exam stated healed i had a fall where i injury neck and elbow.neck was service connected elbow deined because i was to have say i had problem with it before services and i never told recuitor on recuitor exam i checked it and doc stated healed after fall ex ray show bone chips on the elbow

i have no work credit for ssi i have been disabilty since 93 i was hurt in service 22yr old i have noy work since than i was give 10% for 8 yrs 2001i was granted 60% unemployabe. so tell i guess all i have is my va payment or is there some thing else i should due i have cue claim about 93 .but want to no what i can do about ssi

i feel there was a cue on my 93 decision i have sreach cue and found one just like mine that was granted i had a hearing i put the cue granted stated the laws i fell were cue and i got a decsion with nothing about hearing or laws just something that said the va has been most genrs i can not spell but get the pic. i just did nod and now waiting again put in for hardship.and that was with the hearing in may got decsion in oct. who could i find out who did my 93 decision so i can see if this person is playing with my cue case.

i have a cue claim 93 decision i was rated 10%under 5322 rating code which is for some one with gun shot wound. i have a neck condition with spasm i would try to incresae and told no scar or deep prenating wound.well in 2004 i was rated 5293 which is for my condition was give 60% unemployable. ok here is my cue on entarance exam check that broke elbow 12yrs old had three different exam doc state healed quilfty for air bounre. i had fall in service hurt neck and elbow there was bone chip on exray of elbow. ok was i not suppose to be give in line of duty, presumation of soundness in 93 for my elbow or even aggravated by as it was on enlist and doc state healed had fall all the problem with it and with been rated for some one with gunshot and not been able to increase.i am looking for 93 eed i have not work since 93 from 93-2001 i rec 87$ with all the problem i had i was not even look at for a pension. got to slow down get mad evertime i think of it. now here a question to i am cue some thing from 93 i believe the person who did my case than is with the va now and i fell iam get the run around because i feel they donot want to look bad.they gave me this 100% think i wouldgo away i got a call saying u won but we can not go back to 93 unleast it go to washington. i toke it and now i am cue the decisoin form 93.

my old name on the board was jame and i got a lot of help from t bird and betha i believe the knowlege these people have will help a lot of vets.because i believe there are a lot like me who believe there rep are looking out for them. and find out there claim is been prolong by them. one thing tho if claim is with finance as 1800 said why have i not got the decsion at least

my rep has a computor all rep that are at the va regional offices do dav alfw so on i believe there are a lot vets who are no infromed and rep is person they believe in and they get what i got nothing until i look at my claim my self

i was 10% since 93 until 2001 i found hadit in 2000 i believe and started doing my own claim.yeah i had a rep but had one in 93 and my belif is that half of them no anything i went to one rep and told him the rating code i was rated and he told me ther was not 5293 i told him to get his book and there it was. idid not choose him as a rep. with the help of hadit i had my claim reopen in 2001 in 2004 i was rated 60%with tdiu. no rep told me to do this claim and i put in all the paper work myself. one state rep told me he was not going to put in my claim because i ask for 5293 and tdiu. but hadit research let me no i dont need them.now i just did my cue claim which i learn about with hadit. i had a hearing in may.the rep told the rating dude he got this hearing and she was right. i use every cfr and cue appeal that was won and turn it to my case. and at the enditold 6/8 week for decsion. well its been 12 weeks. call rep ask can she find out anything told it takes time. i am like u where there at hearing and rating dude said 8weeks. got nothing from her 4 day ago. i call 1800 again and told it left rating board and at finance. so i believe i won my cue.but see rep has same computor 1800 has the rep that are in side va regional. so y she could not tell me. well i just want a vets to no u have to research your own claim find a appeal case that was won with your symtom.and highlight the important thing on your doc reports.and the case that was won.now they have to work to tell u y they denied u. i no this is long but i want to thank everyone at hadit.com for giving me the knowledge to do my claim i had not work since army93 i recieved 90.00 a month for 8yrs no rep told me i could do this hadit.com told me and my life is better

B) i have not recieved any thing the rating guy at hearing say i should have answer in 6-8 week nothing i dont want to send anything and slow the process i was told it is at the rating board is this a good thing.

fun thing i got the letter for my hearing begin of next month so this claim is moving so why was it with supervisor 6 months isnt she the one that saids if there was a cue or not and isnt the rating dude the one who rates the claim after the supviser looks over it i could be wrong tho

i just call today and nice girl told me my cue claim that had been with the superviser for the last 6 month is with a rating dude or girl . now i ask for hearing girl told me thay could just make decision. so what doe this sound like did i win my cue and they are rating it or is this more of the hold up stuff

this is denial 93. service connection for disability of the upper extremity with symptoms of paresthesia is not established. service medical records indicate the veteran admitted to existence of the symptomatology following a left elbow fracture prior to service. the service medical records and va examination report fall to show permanent agravation of the preexisting symptomatology due to the veteran s fall during his brief period of active duty. alright here it is i was told on my 2004 5293 100% claim i was a gulf war era veteran so title 38 chapter 11 sec111 every veteran shall be taken to have been in sound condition. this what it is i broke elbow when i was 12 yrs old i was 23 in the service when i had the fall i had a ex ray that show a bone chip. i stated on enlistment about broke elbow doc stated healed ready for training even quilfed for air bourne. had fall and was told i was discharge for not meeting procurement medical fitness standards.give 10% for neck strain 5322 for some one with gunshot wound i dont have that for 10 yr i was here then hadit.com and did new claim 2001 change code to 5293 and 100 never work since 93. so got cue about 10% wrong code used. so looking for some more help hadit.com. got hearing come soon i have alot of the cfr38 that was not use like 4.7,4.20,3.322,3.304,4.22 and on and on .

i filed for hearing 4month ago buffalo ny any one with a wait time.

i filed for hearing 4month ago buffalo ny any one with a wait time.

i open the cue claim in 10/08 and made a call to check on it and was told it with a superviser i call rep and told the guy who is looking will look at but rep don,t no any thing about cue claims they are good for nothing. as i say i reopen claim in 2001 i did this with the help of hadit.com and got my 100% rep told me i should not be get help from some one on internet. rep help was no good that is why they did this in 93 there wasno hadit.com then so i no nothing.reg 4.22 can some tell me how that reads i believe it help with my elbow cue.