Jump to content

Linda Jordan

  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Linda Jordan

  • Rank
    E-3 Seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'm reading the contract I received from the attorney and he's asking for 30% plus all costs to himself which may include travel costs, long distance phone calls, etc. This doesn't sound right to me. I thought the max was 20% of past due benefits to be paid to him by the VA - period. Input?
  2. I am happy to say an attorney is reviewing my case as we speak.....or having breakfast first.
  3. I agree Bronco. They failed to rebut the presumption of soundness on this one. I have contacted an attorney who is reviewing my documents as we speak. I believe this would be a C.U.E. also. I don't want to try to reopen or submit a supplemental claim as I believe it will ruin my chances for an EED.
  4. I sent my info to an attorney today. No matter the evidence I put in front of their eyes, they are saying a white rabbit is black. In my case, the attorney would be looking at the 200,000 dollars. I would be looking at 800,000. The reason is I'm going for multiple screw ups and if I am rated at 70% going all the way back as per 38 C.F.R. 3.156 for the anxiety and I fill in the gaps with my other claims, I'll be good to go. I had an actual diagnosis for generalized anxiety disorder from the examiner and one other I'm saving for later that a little known law, that changed one month after my claim was final, will allow me access to. I need the anxiety first. I have several cards up my sleeve still - with C.U.E. on three different fronts being my last choice. These potential C.U.E.s are solid. I just need someone who can organize the material and make them listen.
  5. I was denied this claim but was service connected for anxiety 28 years later when I had a mental health exam with the VA for PTSD. They denied the PTSD but gave me 70% for anxiety and they used 66 pages of service records that weren't associated with my claims file in 1990 to do it. I've argued that 38 C.F.R. 3.156 mandates they reconsider my old claim and award me an EED for 1990 but they won't do it. They're trying to say the anxiety is a new claim and that no old claim exists.
  6. It said it was deferred and I had one more examination for my back but I was denied for everything without the mental health examiner ever reviewing my C-file. Turns out I had a record of being treated for my back and I worked in an aircraft structural repair shop for four and a half years where we carried around 70 lb tool boxes (which is mentioned in the report in my service medical records and I weighed a whopping 115 lbs at the time) but they said "no connection". I've had back trouble and treatment ever since. Trying to figure out if a supplemental claim will mess up my chance at an earlier effective date. I think it might. I might have to do the back claim as a C.U.E. unless I can provide proof via service records not associated with my claims file at the time. Trying to proceed very carefully.
  7. Never mind. I figured it out. Not in my favor but my claim was put into deferred status at one point. How would I know if it was taken out of deferred? It was denied but the medical examiner didn't have my c-file. Any chance my claim could still be ruled pending because of that? There was only one mental examination done and it's noted at the top that "c-file was not available". I was service connected 28 years later. They don't want to back date me.
  8. Being involved with trying to get an earlier effective date for a claim I filed within one year of separation, I was going over my c-file with a fine tooth comb. When I looked at my Rating Decision, I got very confused. In the Narrative section the first line says "Original", the second line says " SC for left knee injury and obsessive-compulsive neurosis with depression and anxiety. ". Then it lists the evidence and proceeds to debunk or put forth reasons I don't qualify for the conditions listed as SC along with some other conditions in my claim. I'm so confused! Did they service connect me in one section then un-service connect me later on in the narrative? Here's the actual text under the Narrative section with some personal stuff blanked out. I've underlined the SC part and the blanked out parts don't have anything to do with the SC conditions listed. Could the SC line only be a reiteration of parts of what I was claiming or is it a statement of service connection for those conditions? If there's a contradiction, should I get the benefit of the doubt? 23. NARRATIVE J. Original claim. I. SC for left knee injury and obsessive-compulsive neurosis with depression and anxiety. E. SMR’s, January, 82, to January, 90. DVA exam, 5/8/90, and 6/5/90, VANC, Loma Linda. Medical report, 4/22/81, ___________________ M.D. F. SMR’s show on entrance physical history of treatment for adjustment problems pre-service. Medical report of Dr. _________, shows veteran treated May 30, 80, to December 8, 80, ior adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features. During service veteran had pre-existing mole removed from upper left inner thigh. Veteran struck in face by hammer in November, 86. No fracture or dislocations by X-ray. Veteran landed on knees 12/2/89, knees cleaned and hibiclens scrub brush and bacitialim ointment applied. DVA exam shows no limitation of motion, no structural lumbosacral abnormalities. No residuals of facial or knee trauma. No evidence of ear infection or conjunctivitis. Veteran gives history of ovarian cyst. Mental status exam shows speech is slightly increased in rate normal tone. Affect is full and appropriate somewhat anxious. Mood is dysphoric. Veteran denies auditory and visual hallucinations, delusions, and suicidal or homicidal ideation. Thought processes are goal directed. Impression was dysthymia rule out organic mood disorder depressed secondary to ______________, generalized anxiety disorder and ___________________________Rule out panic disorder, rule out obsessive-compulsive disorder. Remainder of exam unremarkable. D. Veteran’s knee and facial trauma, ear infection and conjunctivitis were all acute and transitory with no residuals shown on DVA examination. Ovarian cyst is developmental. Back pain not ratable in absence of objective symptomatology. The removal of the mole, left thigh was remedial, no aggravation shown. The veteran’s generalized anxiety, depression pre-existed service. Aggravation not shown. ________________________________No basis for service-connection for any of the above conditions. 8. NSC (PTE) 5299- Bilateral knee condition ( acute and trans) 5299 Back condition (not incurred) 6099 Conjunctivitis -(acute and trans) 6299 Ear infection (acute and trans) - 7699 Ovarian cyst (can't read what they wrote) 9499. Obsessive-compulsive disorder with anxiety and depression (EPTS) 14. Disability result of veteran’s ____________________________
  9. I guess we'll see at the end of the week. I feel I have put forth my argument as well as possible. I wrote a very detailed list of points I wanted to bring up with specific documents referenced with dates. I did the research as well as I could, as to what evidence was actually used in my first claim as opposed to the subsequent claim granting service connection and referenced the specific documentation to support my assertions. I referenced specific actions and documents that corroborated my testimony. Also, while going through my records with a fine tooth comb, I discovered that indeed, a pre existing condition was never noted on my entrance exam. They tried to rebut the presumption of soundness with a letter stating I'd been treated as a teenager but that diagnosis was a completely diagnosis as anxiety and is disallowed for compensation - Adjustment disorder. I emphasized and stated in detail which records such as APRs and letters of recommendation both good and bad, depending on what time frame of my service were used in deciding my current claim. I referenced the marked pattern from a stellar start to my career to ending in a ball of flames that my personnel records illustrated and how heavy a weight they were given in the subsequent decision. Clearly, there was a significant amount of evidence in the form of service records that were used in my subsequent determination that weren't used in the 1990 claim and I hope I was able to make my argument as clear and concise as possible. Hoping for a good outcome. Don't we all?
  10. I wrote to congress and the head of the regional center in Seattle. The vice head called me and they're deciding my claim by the end of the week. I sent in a Request For Higher Review. You have to opt in the new appeals system in order to do that and not have any new evidence for a Request For A Higher Level Review.
  11. I took a closer look at my denial letter from 1990 and sure enough, my c-file wasn't used. Only my service medical records. My c-file clearly shows I began my service at the top. I set the shop record for the CDC course, made below the zone Senior Airman, made staff under four and on and on. My performance took a severe crash and I went down in flames. I would think dramatic decline in performance would have served to prove aggravation and PTSD as a result of my newly reported MST. I understand MST isn't the condition. I'm looking for an attorney. Any suggestions for resources to look toward?
  12. Hello Broncovet, DBQ : Under box 2b. Relevant occupational and educational history, the doctor said "History multiple jobs and applications for jobs since military. Inability to obtain employment due to background checks, reflecting legal problems including subsequent to substance use associated with emotional consequences of military sexual trauma". In box 6. Remarks regarding employability are: "Occupational: Unemployment/underemployment, many jobs attempted/applied for without success, attempted vocational rehabilitation/training, inability to obtain employment due to history legal problems, physical condition adversely affects ability to work" . "Other: military sexual trauma/rape (substantiated by military records) contributing to employment problems and substance use". "SECTION 1C AXIS IV: Severe symptoms depression and anxiety including recent history suicidal ideation,post traumatic anxiety." I filed my original claim for anxiety and depression within one year of separation which should, in and of itself, earn me retroactive benefits I would think according to 38 C.F.R. 3.4 00 as follows (sorry for copying such a long document): I've made the text blue where it's most pertinent. § 3.400 General. Except as otherwise provided, the effective date of an evaluation and award of pension, compensation or dependency and indemnity compensation based on an original claim, a claimreopened after final disallowance, or a claim for increase will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is the later. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5110(a)) (a)Unless specifically provided. On basis of facts found. (b)Disability benefits - (1)Disability pension (§ 3.3). An award of disability pension may not be effective prior to the date entitlement arose. (i)Claims received prior to October 1, 1984.Date of receipt of claim or date on which theveteran became permanently and totally disabled, if claim is filed within one year from such date, whichever is to the advantage of the veteran. (ii)Claims received on or after October 1, 1984. (A) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, date of receipt of claim. (B) If, within one year from the date on which the veteran became permanently and totally disabled, the veteran files a claim for a retroactive award and establishes that a physical or mental disability, which was not the result of the veteran's own willful misconduct, was so incapacitating that it prevented him or her from filing a disability pension claim for at least the first 30 days immediately following the date on which the veteran became permanently and totally disabled, the disability pension award may be effective from the date of receipt ofclaim or the date on which the veteran became permanently and totally disabled, whichever is to the advantage of the veteran. While rating board judgment must be applied to the facts and circumstances of each case, extensive hospitalization will generally qualify as sufficiently incapacitating to have prevented the filing of a claim. For the purposes of this subparagraph, the presumptive provisions of § 3.342(a) do not apply. (2)Disability compensation - (i)Direct service connection (§ 3.4(b)). Day following separation from active service or date entitlement arose if claim is received within 1 year after separation from service; otherwise, date of receipt of claim, or date entitlement arose, whichever is later. Separation from service means separation under conditions other than dishonorable from continuous active service which extended from the date the disability was incurred or aggravated. As far as the MST goes, it's in the form of my testimony as although I reported it to my commander, there is no record of this particular event in my service records. There is, however, secondary evidence by way of actions that happened as a result this incident. Does my testimony qualify as service records? My c-file was available to the adjudicator but not to the psychiatrist who did my C&P exam for the 1990 claim. The records were available but the medical examiner didn't have them for reference as he stated at the top of the document he wrote of the evaluation. I haven't reopened the 1990 claim as I'm not sure how to proceed. As far as hiring an attorney, isn't there a requirement to have filed an NOD? I haven't done that yet as i was advised not to concerning my TDIU claim and I can't find an attorney who will take on my case at this point in the game. I feel like I've fallen between the cracks.
  13. My title practically tells the story.. I have two issues here. I don't know if I should have posted separately but here they are. The first is regarding my denial for TDIU and the second concerns making a connection for retroactive benefits between a recently service connected claim and an original. I was recently service connected at 70% for anxiety and applied for TDIU. I have two DBQs on file both of which rate me at 70% occupational and social impairment. The denial letter was very vague/didn't contain an explanation as to why they denied me. They only stated that despite my 70% they'd found I was capable of gainful employment. I sent in 7 years of tax returns all showing my income to be at close to 50% of the poverty level and I've been unemployed for a year. What happened? I've contacted my Congresswoman's office for help and am waiting to hear back. My VSO has been of very little help. He told me to get two letters from my doctor or whoever, stating I can't work but my counselor just went on post pregnancy leave indefinitely and my new counselor isn't familiar enough with my condition to write a letter. My primary care doctor wouldn't be qualified or willing to write such a statement I wouldn't think although I haven't asked her yet. Second issue: I filed an original claim for depression and anxiety in 1990 within one year of separation which I didn't appeal and it is final. I'm sure I can connect it with my recent service connection. My most recent claim was filed in 2017 for MST that I hadn't brought up in the 1990 claim. I was service connected with anxiety as a result of that claim but not MST (funny, i was sexually assaulted three times and continuously harassed from the day I entered into service in 1982 till the time I was discharged in 1990). I'm thinking that I need to reopen that 1990 claim with new and material evidence but I'm not sure whether or not this process should have been automatically started due to the inextricable connection between the original and new claims. Is there legal basis upon which to compel the VA to consider the first claim service connected without reopening the claim? I'm thinking through the concept of reasonably raised claims (they should logically look back through my files, see the 1990 claim for anxiety, and put two and two together) and/or the fact that my two claims are obviously inextricably intertwined. I'm getting ready to make some sort of communication with the VA regarding the latter of the two issues above. I'm just looking for clarification on how to pursue the second, specifically, should the two claims automatically be connected by way of similarity and should I argue that with the VA or should I proceed with reopening my 1990 claim with new and material evidence?
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines