Jump to content

pointer123

Seaman
  • Content Count

    17
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About pointer123

  • Rank
    E-3 Seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. My gut instinct is they want this CUE reduction to go away and will get me back to 80% with the deferred conditions so they do not have to deal with that aspect for a reduction in combined rating. I will appeal the eye decision regardless; they have no clue what their own rules say. I also has 0% hearing in 1997.
  2. I was rated in 1997 with 30% for right eye, 20% left arm peripheral neuropathy, 10% tinnitus. That was 50% This clam gave me 10% each for left and right knee with soleus tendinitis and 10% left ankle arthritis, and 30% left eye. That came to 80%. There is no way to understand how they came up with this eye decision. Their own doctors stipulated it was bilateral diplopia that is not correctable. Rules say muscle eye disabilities are rated in the eye with worst corrected vision which is my left eye.
  3. I was a parachutist and diver. Lots of barotrauma and blast exposure, but I never ran to sick bay.
  4. The rating for bilateral diplopia is very clear...but the rater somehow combined my left eye with my right eye and it got all screwed up. I will scan the decision; it will make your head hurt.
  5. They failed to even mention diabetes type II (completely omitted) which has a strong nexus letter from a diabetes endocrinologist ( I thought it would be a shoe in) and vertigo (omitted). Both of these items show as active claims in the exalted ebenefits....
  6. My right eye was rated for aphakia over 20 years ago and rated 30%. It is a protected rating -- can't be touched. I filled for my left eye detached retina with complications in 2017 and received a 30% rating for it under diagnostic code 6029 - aphakia. I never mentioned cataracts or absence of eye lens in the claim. Somehow the rater selected this diagnostic code and rated the left eye using the proper process for that code for the left eye even though they could have rated the left eye for bilateral uncorrectable diplopia at 30%. My hearing was service connected at 0% in 1997 and has gone to crap since then; so I filed a request for increase in the 2017 claim with a boatload of arthritis claims as a retired Marine infantryman with parachutist and scuba diver MOSs. The result of this claim was 80% combined. After the STAR, they started the EP 930. Just got the official Decision Notice: They called CUE on 5 issues for improper effective dates to my advantage. They called CUE on the way they rated my left eye and proposed my left eye be rated at 0% which reduces my combined to 70%. They deferred 15 items. They clearly stated they planned to sever my left eye 30% and say "if this reduction weer to take effect, your disabilities would be reduced to 70% disabling. Is this an official notice to reduce which starts the 30 and 60 day clocks ticking? I can't tell you how badly they screwed up this claim
  7. The"late flowing evidence" is a nice way of saying that all my private medical records that they had in their possession were not used to rate the claim. They got caught after the claim was rated, so they now have to redo everything.
  8. I think the claim got caught in a STAR review in Memphis and thatresults opened Pandora's box. I attended 3 new C&Ps for awarded claims and they sent out 15 medical opinion requests for various other denied requests which are now pending. The second C&P audio exam results pissed them off because the doctor they sent me to came back with a 50% hearing loss assessment. The second doctor was more qualified than the first, but they are sending out a third request for a new audio exam. I am sure they will find one who give the the numbers they want sooner or later.
  9. No letter. If they used their head, they could rate my left eye for uncorrectable bilateral diplopia because the left eye acuity is worse that the right eye so that should be the eye that gets the rating. My right eye is 30% and was awarded over 20 years ago. But they have to figure out how to get this claim with all the contentions re-rated and closed first. They should have rated it that way the first time, but they just assumed in the first C&P that prism glasses would fix the central double vision problem which the second C&P established as persistent and uncorrectable.
  10. The VA is rating a previously awarded claim for 80% that got caught for late flowing evidence and are now in the process of re-rating all contentions in the awarded claim under EP 930. They are now stating that the rater that awarded me 30% for an eye problem for detached retina complications in the first claim made a mistake by using the diagnostic code for aphakia to give me 30%. Is this a VA CUE or just judgement by the rater that should stand as rated?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines