Jump to content

Carmand47

Seaman
  • Content Count

    18
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Carmand47

  • Rank
    E-3 Seaman

Profile Information

  • Military Rank
    army veteran

Previous Fields

  • Service Connected Disability
    70iu
  • Branch of Service
    army

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Berta you are a lifesaver I will be faxing them in the morning.
  2. What is the form you use to file a cue. I'm going to mail it in.
  3. I went into my regional ofc to turn in my cue. They gave me the run around. They said I have to re-open the claim. They said they used my neurosurgeons letter. I said if they did how'd did they come to the decision that they did. They said it was a simple type o. Based off of thats schedule at that time I know I qualified. I'm sure of it. I'm not sure what happened. It's discouraging.
  4. I went into my regional ofc to turn in my cue. They gave me the run around. They said I have to re-open the claim. They said they used my neurosurgeons letter. I said if they did how'd did they come to the decision that they did. They said it was a simple type o. Based off of thats schedule at that time I know I qualified. I'm sure of it. I'm not sure what happened. It's discouraging.
  5. Berta, they actually used Dc 5241 on the rating decision but if you noticed they didn't use it anywhere in the letter rated me under the old criteria So do you think I should make any reference to the law requiring them to use the old material why just leave that alone
  6. So did you ever have a bone graft done for your surgery and if so did it give you complications. VA svc-connected me but gave me 0% because the used the dc 7805 for scars I told them it was my illiac crest that hurts to move lifting my rgt thigh is very painful. I told them I never claim a scar but the donor site pain. I welcome any advice you could give. Cause Louisville Ky varo is no help at all.
  7. This is a claim of Clear and Unmistakable Error under auspices of, 38 USC, 5109a. VARO Louisville Ky did not thoroughly and Conscientiously study the probative evidence that they had. I feel that the VARO violated my rights under: ₴ 4.6 Evaluation of Evidence. The element of the weight to be accorded the character of the veteran’s service is but one factor entering into the consideration of the rating board in arriving at determination of the evaluation of disability. Every element in any way affecting the probate if value to be assigned to the evidence in each individual claim must be thoroughly can consciously studied by each member of the rating board in the light of this established policies of the Department of Veterans affairs to the end that decisions will be equitable and just is contemplated by the requirements of the law 38 CFR 4.6. The VA’s failure to notate the previous percentage rating properly and not applying the enclosed neurosurgeon’s letter as well as my Open MRI results manifestly altered the outcome of the decisions referred to above. If the proper rate increase percentage was applied on the decision letter dated 27Feb04 It would have increased my rating for my Status post discectomy and anterior Fusion cervical spine at C5-C6 with arthritis from 20% to 30% and more for my overall rating. This critical error was detrimental to me because it negatively affected the amount of compensation I have received as a manifested negative outcome since the error was initially made. It appears that the MRI narrative was not considered, or it was not used in the decision dated 27Feb04. a letter dated 8/22/03 from my neurosurgeon at the time from the neurosurgical group of greater Louisville in southern Indiana Dr. David A Petruska, M.D., with my MRI results dated 8/20/03 Dr. Joy D. Foster, M.D. and Dr Peter A. Rothchild, M.D., from Open MRI LLC. Page 4, paragraph 2 the decision dated 27Feb04 the rating criteria for evaluating spine and neck conditions changed on September 26, 2003 your increased evaluation is based on the old criteria that was in place prior to September 26, 2003 change. Under this old criteria evaluation of 20% was assigned whenever there was moderate limitation of motion of the cervical spine are demonstratable deformity of a vertebral body from fracture with slight limitation of motion. A higher evaluation of 30% is not warranted unless there is severe limitation of motion of the cervical spine or moderate limitation of motion with demonstratable deformity of a vertebral body from fracture. The results from my MRI indicated a loss of the cervical lordotic curvature with mild scoliosis of the cervical spine convexity to the right. in addition to multi- level disc degeneration. Therefore 30% evaluation was warranted for this disability at that time. Thank you both I'm going to finish the rest tommorow
  8. hello berta what do you think? This is a claim of Clear and Unmistakable Error under auspices of, 38 USC, 5109a. The VARO Louisville Ky did not thoroughly and Conscientiously study the probative evidence that they had: It appears that the MRI narrative was not considered, or it was not used in the decision dated 27Feb04. Please see the enclosed supporting documents: a letter dated 8/22/03 from my neurosurgeon at the time from the neurosurgical group of greater Louisville in southern Indiana Dr. David A Petruska, M.D., with my MRI results dated 8/20/03 Dr. Joy D. Foster, M.D. and Dr Peter A. Rothchild, M.D., from Open MRI LLC. Page 4, paragraph 2 the decision dated 27Feb04 the rating criteria for evaluating spine and neck conditions changed on September 26, 2003 your increased evaluation is based on the old criteria that was in place prior to September 26, 2003 change. Under this old criteria evaluation of 20% was assigned whenever there was moderate limitation of motion of the cervical spine are demonstrateable deformity of a vertebral body from fracture with slight limitation of motion. A higher evaluation of 30% is not warranted unless there is severe limitation of motion of the cervical spine or moderate limitation of motion with demonstratable deformity of a vertebral body from fracture. The results from my MRI indicated a loss of the cervical lordotic curvature with mild scoliosis of the cervical spine convexity to the right. in addition to multi- level disc degeneration. Therefore 30% evaluation was warranted for this disability at that time. I feel that the VARO violated my rights under: ₴ 4.6 Evaluation of Evidence. The element of the weight to be accorded the character of the veteran’s service is but one factor entering into the consideration of the rating board in arriving at determination of the evaluation of disability. Every element in any way affecting the probate if value to be assigned to the evidence in each individual claim must be thoroughly can consciously studied by each member of the rating board in the light of this established policies of the Department of Veterans affairs to the end that decisions will be equitable and just is contemplated by the requirements of the law 38 CFR 4.6. The VA’s failure to notate the previous percentage rating properly and not applying the enclosed neurosurgeon’s letter as well as my Open MRI results manifestly altered the outcome of the decisions referred to above. If the proper rate increase percentage was applied on the decision letter dated 27Feb04 It would have increased my rating for my Status post discectomy and anterior Fusion cervical spine at C5-C6 with arthritis from 20% to 30% and more for my overall rating. This critical error was detrimental to me because it negatively affected the amount of compensation I have received as a manifested negative outcome since the error was initially made.
  9. Berta i want to think you for your input you sure do know your stuff. I have had to deal with alot while i was in. and since ive been out this road hasnt been easy either but God has kept me and my family. I was a single mother of two at the time i left the service. it was a struggle pushing through injuries, pain and constantly battling the bureacracy of the va system not knowing the regulations or how to get approved. i just did the best i could. It took me to 2003 before i was awarded enough where my children could be added for benefits. then i was able to get my finances straighten out. then 2004 until they granted me permanent an total unemployability. I failed to look closely at my paperwork and thats not going to ever be the case anymore especially where va is concerned. Its great knowing that there are people like you and this forum community that can help. because i dont remember anything like this 20+yrs ago. Its a beautiful thing.
  10. berta thank you for your patience. no apology needed. Yes i do agree that all other decisions would have been proper. I was initially awarded 10% for service connection on neck but I disaagree and asked for a reevaluation that letter i can find anywhere. but as you can see they have it noted very well. i did have the decision ltr for the increase of 20% 22may01. they gave me the 20% back to the original effective of 20may99. now with the decision ltr for 27Feb04 they referenced the 10%instead of the 20% given in may. So this is why you think i should just use the 27feb04 ltr. i think because i filed the increase 30jan03 that eed is correct but the percentage is wrong.
  11. ₴ 4.6 Evaluation of evidence This is a CUE under auspices of CUE, 38 USC, 1509A. I have Enclosed copies of the following decisions: Decision letter dated 27Feb04, #2. Under DECISION It references as so “Evaluation of status post discectomy and anterior fusion, cervical spine at C5-C6 with arthritis (DC 5293) which is currently evaluated as 10% disabling, is increased to 20% effective 30Jan03. Page 3, Under REASONS FOR DECISION #2. Evaluation of Status post discectomy an anterior Fusion cervical spine at C5C6 with arthritis currently evaluated as 10% disabling. We granted an increased evaluation of your service-connected neck condition because the evidence shows this condition has worsened. Your treatment records from VAMC in Louisville show recurrent complaints of neck pain and stiffness. At your 30Jul03 VA compensation exam you had complaints of daily neck pain with radiation of this pain into both arms and hands the examiner noted a muscle spasm in C5-C6 area your flexion was decreased To 30 degrees and extensions decrease to 20 degrees all movements was associated with pain.” Prior to that decision, a decision letter dated 22May01, page 2 Under DECISION #1. “Service connection for status post discectomy and anterior fusion cervical spine at C5-C6 with arthritis Is granted with an evaluation of 20% effective 20May99. Page 3 Under Analysis: paragraphs 1-3 “service connection for status post discectomy and anterior fusion cervical spine at C5-C6 with arthritis has been established as directly related to Military service. An evaluation of 20% is assigned under diagnostic code 5293 from 20May99 the date the claim was received. An evaluation of 20% is granted for recurring attacks of moderate intervertebral disc syndrome a higher valuation of 30% (at that time) is not warranted unless there is severe limitation of motion of the cervical spine, or moderate limitation of motion with demonstratable deformity of a vertebral body from fracture. The exam shows decreased range of motion the, X Ray show mild to moderate degenerative changes of the areas of the cervical spine that were fused C5- C6 and the veteran has ongoing tingling and burning of her hands and arms along with occasional pain. Page 4, paragraph 2 the decision dated 27Feb04 the rating criteria for evaluating spine and neck conditions changed on September 26, 2003 your increased evaluation is based on the old criteria that was in place prior to September 26, 2003 change. Under this old criteria evaluation of 20% was assigned whenever there was moderate limitation of motion of the cervical spine are demonstratable deformity of a vertebral body from fracture with slight limitation of motion. A higher evaluation of 30% is not warranted unless there is severe limitation of motion of the cervical spine or moderate limitation of motion with demonstratable deformity of a vertebral body from fracture. The results from my MRI indicated a loss of the cervical lordotic curvature with mild scoliosis of the cervical spine convexity to the right. in addition to multi- level disc degeneration. Therefore 30% evaluation was warranted for this disability at that time. a letter dated 8/22/03 from my neurosurgeon at the time from the Neurosurgical Group OF Greater Louisville and Southern Indiana Dr. David A. Petruska, M.D., with My MRI results dated 08/20/03 from Dr. Joy D. Foster, M.D. and Dr. Peter A. Rothchild, M.D. from Open MRI LLC The VA’s failure to notate the previous percentage rating properly and not applying the enclosed neurosurgeon’s letter as well as my Open MRI results manifestly altered the outcome of the decisions referred to above. If the proper rate increase percentage was approved on the decision letter dated 27Apr04 It would have increased my rating from for my Status post discectomy and anterior Fusion cervical spine at C5C6 with arthritis from 20% to 30% and more for my overall rating. This resulted in a shortage of my VA disability compensation pay.27feb04 spt doc decision ltr.pdf
  12. ₴ 4.6 Evaluation of evidence This is a CUE under auspices of CUE, 38 USC, 1509A. I have Enclosed copies of the following decisions: Decision letter dated 27Feb04, #2. Under DECISION It references as so “Evaluation of status post discectomy and anterior fusion, cervical spine at C5-C6 with arthritis (DC 5293) which is currently evaluated as 10% disabling, is increased to 20% effective 30Jan03. Page 3, Under REASONS FOR DECISION #2. Evaluation of Status post discectomy an anterior Fusion cervical spine at C5C6 with arthritis currently evaluated as 10% disabling. We granted an increased evaluation of your service-connected neck condition because the evidence shows this condition has worsened. Your treatment records from VAMC in Louisville show recurrent complaints of neck pain and stiffness. At your 30Jul03 VA compensation exam you had complaints of daily neck pain with radiation of this pain into both arms and hands the examiner noted a muscle spasm in C5-C6 area your flexion was decreased To 30 degrees and extensions decrease to 20 degrees all movements was associated with pain.” Prior to that decision, a decision letter dated 22May01, page 2 Under DECISION #1. “Service connection for status post discectomy and anterior fusion cervical spine at C5-C6 with arthritis Is granted with an evaluation of 20% effective 20May99. Page 3 Under Analysis: paragraphs 1-3 “service connection for status post discectomy and anterior fusion cervical spine at C5-C6 with arthritis has been established as directly related to Military service. An evaluation of 20% is assigned under diagnostic code 5293 from 20May99 the date the claim was received. An evaluation of 20% is granted for recurring attacks of moderate intervertebral disc syndrome a higher valuation of 30% (at that time) is not warranted unless there is severe limitation of motion of the cervical spine, or moderate limitation of motion with demonstratable deformity of a vertebral body from fracture. The exam shows decreased range of motion the, X Ray show mild to moderate degenerative changes of the areas of the cervical spine that were fused C5- C6 and the veteran has ongoing tingling and burning of her hands and arms along with occasional pain. Page 4, paragraph 2 the decision dated 27Feb04 the rating criteria for evaluating spine and neck conditions changed on September 26, 2003 your increased evaluation is based on the old criteria that was in place prior to September 26, 2003 change. Under this old criteria evaluation of 20% was assigned whenever there was moderate limitation of motion of the cervical spine are demonstratable deformity of a vertebral body from fracture with slight limitation of motion. A higher evaluation of 30% is not warranted unless there is severe limitation of motion of the cervical spine or moderate limitation of motion with demonstratable deformity of a vertebral body from fracture. The results from my MRI indicated a loss of the cervical lordotic curvature with mild scoliosis of the cervical spine convexity to the right. in addition to multi- level disc degeneration. Therefore 30% evaluation was warranted for this disability at that time. a letter dated 8/22/03 from my neurosurgeon at the time from the Neurosurgical Group OF Greater Louisville and Southern Indiana Dr. David A. Petruska, M.D., with My MRI results dated 08/20/03 from Dr. Joy D. Foster, M.D. and Dr. Peter A. Rothchild, M.D. from Open MRI LLC The VA’s failure to notate the previous percentage rating properly and not applying the enclosed neurosurgeon’s letter as well as my Open MRI results manifestly altered the outcome of the decisions referred to above. If the proper rate increase percentage was approved on the decision letter dated 27Apr04 It would have increased my rating from for my Status post discectomy and anterior Fusion cervical spine at C5C6 with arthritis from 20% to 30% and more for my overall rating. This resulted in a shortage of my VA disability compensation pay.27feb04 spt doc decision ltr.pdf 22may01 spt doc decision ltr.pdf 3.pdf
  13. Oh no berta thats not it. I welcome your advice im running blind here. I really appreciate the time your taking to help me. I was also trying to figure out how to scan these copies of my decision letters. i might just have to screen capture on my phone then up load them to my computer so you can see them. I apologize im very new to the site. Please bare with me.
  14. This is a CUE under auspices of CUE, 38 USC, 1509A. I have Enclosed copies of the following decisions: Decision letter dated 27Apr04, #2. Under DECISION It references as so “Evaluation of status post discectomy and anterior fusion, cervical spine at C5-C6 with arthritis (DC 5293) which is currently evaluated as 10% disabling, is increased to 20% effective 30Jan03. Page 3, Under REASONS FOR DECISION #2. Evaluation of Status post discectomy an anterior Fusion cervical spine at C5C6 with arthritis currently evaluated as 10% disabling. We granted an increased evaluation of your service-connected neck condition because the evidence shows this condition has worsened. Your treatment records from VAMC in Louisville show recurrent complaints of neck pain and stiffness. At your 30Jul03 VA compensation exam you had complaints of daily neck pain with radiation of this pain into both arms and hands the examiner noted a muscle spasm in C5-C6 area your flexion was decreased To 30 degrees and extensions decrease to 20 degrees all movements was associated with pain.” Prior to that decision, a decision letter dated 22May01, page 2 Under DECISION #1. “Service connection for status post discectomy and anterior fusion cervical spine at C5-C6 with arthritis Is granted with an evaluation of 20% effective 20May99. Page 3 Under Analysis: paragraphs 1-3 “service connection for status post discectomy and anterior fusion cervical spine at C5-C6 with arthritis has been established as directly related to Military service. An evaluation of 20% is assigned under diagnostic code 5293 from 20May99 the date the claim was received. An evaluation of 20% is granted for recurring attacks of moderate intervertebral disc syndrome a higher valuation of 30% (at that time) is not warranted unless there is severe limitation of motion of the cervical spine, or moderate limitation of motion with demonstratable deformity of a vertebral body from fracture. The exam shows decreased range of motion the, X Ray show mild to moderate degenerative changes of the areas of the cervical spine that were fused C5- C6 and the veteran has ongoing tingling and burning of her hands and arms along with occasional pain. Page 4, paragraph 2 the decision dated 27Apr04 the rating criteria for evaluating spine and neck conditions changed on September 26, 2003 your increased evaluation is based on the old criteria that was in place prior to September 26, 2003 change. Under this old criteria evaluation of 20% was assigned whenever there was moderate limitation of motion of the cervical spine are demonstratable deformity of a vertebral body from fracture with slight limitation of motion. A higher evaluation of 30% is not warranted unless there is severe limitation of motion of the cervical spine or moderate limitation of motion with demonstratable deformity of a vertebral body from fracture. The results from my MRI indicated a loss of the cervical lordotic curvature with mild scoliosis of the cervical spine convexity to the right. in addition to multi- level disc degeneration. Therefore 30% evaluation was warranted for this disability at that time. a letter dated 8/22/03 from my neurosurgeon at the time from the Neurosurgical Group OF Greater Louisville and Southern Indiana Dr. David A. Petruska, M.D., with My MRI results dated 08/20/03 from Dr. Joy D. Foster, M.D. and Dr. Peter A. Rothchild, M.D. from Open MRI LLC The VA’s failure to notate the previous percentage rating properly and not applying the enclosed neurosurgeon’s letter as well as my Open MRI results manifestly altered the outcome of the decisions referred to above. If the proper rate increase percentage was approved on the decision letter dated 27Apr04 It would have increased my rating from for my Status post discectomy and anterior Fusion cervical spine at C5C6 with arthritis from 20% to 30% and more for my overall rating. This resulted in a shortage of my VA disability compensation pay.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines