broncovet

The exam you posted sounds like this exam is favorable to a service connection for PTSD. You need to check other exams, tho, to see if they conflate with this one...VA will. Assuming you get service connected (that exam is no guarntee...VA still loves to deny even when we have all three: Diagnosis, stressor, nexus, by making stuff up. For me, the VA made up a "new" criteria: time since military service. I called them on that and BVA reversed them. Then they countered with a lowball. What one guy does is write down the symptoms the doc says you have. Then compare those with the rating criteria, and see which one is the closest to yours.

I was scheduled for a C and P, the RO cancelled it and rescheduled then denied me for failing to appear for a C and P exam. (I attended the "new" exam). Its called "top sheeting" where the RO only reads a couple paragraphs and whips out the "Claim denied" rubber stamp. I wrote to Allison Hickey, and, lo and behold the VARO director told me it would not be denied. So, they redid the decision and denied it erroneously (again) because they did not consider all my disabilities for TDIU, just half of them. So, my advice is to write to allison so you can get a denial for something better, that you can appeal.

Congratulations. Your IU sounds enough like mine that I should move to Kentucky so I can get the same result you got. My RO fights six figure Retro's like a momma bear fights someone stealing her cubs. Im very tickled you posted this, Berta, and I may even use it for a template.

Interesting, Gastone. May I inquire how is it that you know the number one referral is Accupuncture? Can any one else smell something "fishy"? While I have had accupuncture, I know exactly " zero" other Veterans who had it through the VA (I paid for mine). This smells like some fraud, where an accupuncturist is collecting big bucks, and not even seeing Vets..you know, like medicare fraud. Its more lucrative in VA because the VA has control over its Keystone Cops, the VAOIG.

Exactly, Berta. You said it better than I did. If he was awarded 100 plus 60, with an effective date in 1995, then the CUE effective date would be 1995. You see, when CUE is granted it is granted "as if the error did not occur". So, if this Va decision was correct, he would have gotten SMC S in 1995 (again assuming you got 100 plus 60 awarded in 1995). Thus, in this senario, he would get retro to 1995 if the Cue were successful. (However, dont think the VA wont try to hornswaggle you on the effective date of that also.) I beleive Alex recently won SMC back to 1994 because that was the date the evidence showed he should have gotten SMC S. Rememeber, the VA takes a position against the Veteran that is substantially unjustifed 70 percent of the time, according to Chief Justice Roberts.

The "choice" program was like most of the other VA programs: The money was raided and squandered on "other" projects, this one went to a bothched hospital project in Aurora. This is widely known, VA even got approval to "divert" choice money to the over budget, over paid contractors for the hospital. So, the money for Veterans choice is going to lucrative government contracts for the Aurora Hospital. If you go to work for one of the "favored" contractors, then you probably wont have to worry about health insurance.

You got it right. If you were eligible for SMC S (met the criteria, such as "100 plus 60" or housebound in fact), then you should get retro. You dont have to apply, you simply need to demonstrate you met the criteria. There are a couple ways to do this: 1. You can appeal the RO decision disputing the removal of the SMC S, AND appeal the effective date. The effective date appeal of SMC S should have been done within a year of the decision which awarded SMC S. 2. YOu can file a CUE, alleging it was clear error not to award SMC S back to 1985 if you can demonstrate you met the criteria back then. 3. You can file a new claim for SMC S. Of these, for you, it seems like numbers one and 2 are the best. However, if you do file a new claim for SMC S, and get it, you can still appeal the effective date.

I think what Ask nod is getting at is that, is in reference to the effective date of SMC. You see, the VA has to infer SMC whenever the Veteran meets the criteria, he need not "apply" for SMC. (While many times it is still necessary to apply for SMC as the VA "overlooks" this, still, when it comes to the effective date, it will (should) happen according to facts found, and NOT the date of application. (Remember, the general rule for effective dates is that it is the later of the date of application or "facts found" (the date the doc says you are disabled). Since there is no "application date" as the VA must infer SMC whenever the Veteran meets the applicable criteria, you should get retro on your SMC back to the date you first became eligible for SMC. If I recall, Ask Nod got SMC S back to 1994.

I dont think so, unless your wife is also a 100% disabled Veteran, also, they wont discharge her student loans. https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/forgiveness-cancellation/disability-discharge

I have read much on this issue, even tho I have never been to a DRO hearing. You see, since I have a rather severe hearing loss, I can't "hear" much of what they say at a "hearing". This is the gist of what I have read. A hearing is good that you can review the evidence the VA has on file. This is critical, because, we often dont know which evidence they have in their possession, especially evidence since the last time we asked for a copy of the c file. At the hearing you can take your evidence with you, review the C file, and say, "Gee, I noticed you did not have DR. Jones favorable medical exam in there. Here let me make you a copy of mine, so its in the file." Time after time, VA manipulates the evidence which is under their complete control. It would be like if you were suing your neighbor, and you said, "Here, hold on to this evidence I have against you, and don't lose any of it. Its the only copy, so I am trusting you to not lose it." Your neighbor will probably snicker as you hand over to him only copy of the evidence that will convict him, as he puts it in the trash. There are many rules as to when the Veteran can submit new evidence. And, importantly, if you appeal to the CAVC, the RBA is "locked" and the CAVC will only consider the evidence in the RBA that was before the Board. That's even when it was the RO who shredded it. Its just maddening to me that we have to trust VA to not lose our evidence, when that is exactly what they want to do.

Dont forget the "outcome determinative" portion that is required for CUE. Its not enough that VA forgot to dot an "I" or that they messed up the DTA letter. I doubt that VA "failure to give a reasons and bases for decision" is outcome determinative. There is a big difference between "error" and an error that meets CUE standards, and one of the differences is that it makes a difference in the outcome. You want to focus only on the errors VA makes which are outcome determinative. They could, and likely do, have many errors in a single decsion, but it is unproductive for us to persue CUE on the errors which are not outcome determinative.

Berta Thank you for posting the M21's on inferring SMC S when a single 100% is awarded. This is exactly what happened to me, only VARO confused the issue by adjuticating SMP housebound, instead of SMC S housebound. Im also going to take into consideration your suggestion of filing CUE via IRIS. I think that is a good idea because it does not go "just to the RO" (where the RO can simply ignore it) , but to where ever it is they process IRIS emails, too. It creates a documented paper trail, that VARO's hate. Hitemstraight: You need to keep reminding yourself, over and over, what Supreme Court Justice, Roberts said: The VA takes a position that is substantially unjustified against the Veteran (between 50% and 70%) of the time. The reason is clear: The VA knows that many Vets will die or give up on their appeals. In fact, they have at least 2 deadlines the Veteran must meet just to keep the appeal alive. So, they just tie them up in unnecessary paperwork. Then, years later, if the Veteran persists, the worst that can happen (for the VA) is the VA gets a no interest loan from the Veteran for years.

Im having a hard time, tho, wrapping my head around what Berta said: "I think the CUE also rests also on the fact that they failed to consider you for SMC on this new decision" The problem seems to boil down to this. "Failure to consider" would warrant only a remand to "consider you" for SMC. Then, on remand, the VA can say, "Ok, we considered it, now the answer is no", and then give a R and B. I dont know about you, but I hate the remand hamster wheel, which can effect a denial until we die. I try to make my case, not for a remand (which happens 46% of the time, according to the Chairmans report), but for a reversal.

I agree with Berta, tho. If the VA "interpreted" its regulation to mean that bilateral factor is not included in ratings above 100% for purposes of SMC S, then they should have so stated.

Ok. Thanks for clarifying the 30% for "hip replacement" was permanent. I also dont know if the "bilateral factor" applies above a 100% rating or not. Remember, Chevron deference, which basically says the "Agency" gets to interpret its own regulation as long as that interpretation is not capricious. In other words "the Agency" could decide to "interpret" the 100 plus 60 to mean that bilateral factor is not included, since the regulation does not say if bilateral factor is included when calculating "100 plus 60" SMC S. Of course, there is the benefit of the doubt, but the CAVC/federal circuit seems to give the agency wide lattitude in deciding what is "in doubt". Please understand, IM "for the Veteran", and merely state this not that you dont deserve your SMC..you do, but to give you ammo for what the VA is gonna argue against you.

If your ratings for 30 % for "hip replacement" are temporary, then you would no longer meet the criteria for SMC S, is what they are saying. You can look that up, but count on the VA to take a convalescent rating away.

To rate your VAMC, you can go straight to here: https://www.varatings.com/index.cfm

After the BVA decision, you have to have another decision, this time by the VARO, implementing the Board decision. While this is supposed to be done quickly and even automatic, mine took 3 years and fighting with the VA just to get them to implement the Board decision. You could get the money as early as a month or so, or it could take several years.

"Competency to handle finances" is a medical determination, not one made by you, me, or Michelle Obama. Your doctor often so states whether or not they feel you are competent in your C and P exam. During my mental health exams, my doc always volunteered that I was competetent to handle finances. If the doc does NOT say you are, sometimes the VA automatically assumes you are incompetent. I do think its wrong for VA to "automatically assume" we are crazed violent Veterans who should not be near guns without some sort of a history of violence, or a medical determination. Yea, someone who is shooting kids at schools would not need a doctor to have his guns taken away. I think the law often has the "reasonable man" theory. Would a "reasonable man" take away a gun from someone shooting children, even if a doc had not said so? I think so. Of course, none of us know your mental health, nor have we examined you. If yours was a "single incident" outburst, then your doc could opinion thusly. Almost all of us get angry. Unless you have a compelling reason to believe otherwise, I would go with what your doc says. If he says, he would be comfortable around you with a gun, then fine. But if he says you should not be around guns, the constitution does not apply because you would be considered a threat to harm yourself or others. There is nothing in the constitution that prevents the law from taking away a weapon from a crazed person intent on killing himself or others. They dont give weapons in prison to violent offenders, so they may enjoy their constitution rights. If you were ever convicted of holding someone at gunpoint or firing a weapon on them, I doubt that you would get approval to own a firearm or CCW.

Your reasoning sounds good to me. I will add there are specific rules to reduce you that the VA must follow. However, those rules are "exempt" if you have a convalescent or temporary rating, as those are, well, temporary while you are recovering from surgery. Did your decision state this was a temporary rating while you are recovering? Post the wording, as well as the reasons and bases, if you are unsure, covering your name and identifying details, such as your address.

If you are NOT in the appeal period (one year after VARO NOD) and you do NOT have CUE, then apply for an increase. If you are in the appeal period, you could appeal the decision for a higher rating. I recommend ordering your C file, and see if your doc has all your symptoms listed. If he does not, then ask him to list all your symptoms. If he refuses, then you may need another doc, since Mental disorders are rated on symptoms. There are 4 ways to get an increase: 1. Apply for an increase. 2. Apply for TDIU if not working. 3. Appeal the decision if in the appeal period. 4. Apply for CUE if there are errors in the decision which meet the Cue standard of review, and are outcome determinative. Most of the time, CUE only applies to the effective date. A disagreement in the percentage rating is almost never CUE, since this is a judgement call which is debatable. (A CUE error has to be undebatable)

Are you working? My intuitive response is that you probably should apply for TDIU and housebound if you have Agoraphobia, since this does not appear to be compatable with working. I mean, gee, Agoraphobia generally means you are afraid to leave your home, so how are you going to do that and work? If you are working, and your Agoraphobia does not seem to affect that, then that could make sense, too. Some people seem to "live" at work, and are more comfortable there than their own home. While I have not been diagnosed as such, I beleive I have symptoms of Agoraphobia. I hate being in situations where I can not hear what is going on, that is, any type of crowd. Somebody could yell "fire" and I would not even know what they said. I am SC for hearing loss, and "f" is one of the letters I pretty much can not hear. I can understand the vowels, but consanants "P", "C", "G" "T", "B", "D", "V", and "Z" are often confused. It greatly raises my anxiety level when I can not hear what is said. Did you ever wonder what people who are speaking spanish or chinese are saying? Are they saying, "Lets hit this guy over the head and take his money. YOu distract him, and I will hit him over the head with this hammer." Of course, in almost every case they are not saying that. Still, I have a fear of being taken advantage of and harmed because I can not hear, in a crowd.

VA rates you on symptoms, not just diseases. You can have a disease with no symptoms and you wont get over 0 percent for it. If you want an increase, you need to show how your symptoms worsened since your last C and P exam. It isnt enough "just" to show DDD. YOur doc needs to show how it limits your life. Do you have reduced Range of motion? Pain? Can you not walk as far? Can you not lift over xx pounds? Can you not perform activities that you could perform at your last C and P exam that awarded your benefits? Of course, all these things need to be "medically" documented. Did your doc put restrictions on work? Are you not allowed to stand for long periods? Lift heavy things? Do manual labor? Sit for long periods? ETC. Remeber, VA is compensating you for loss of earning capacity..if this is the case, then you need to get that documented in your medical records. Of course, I have no idea if/how much your back injury/pain/DDD affects your work, if any.

Is it any wonder this website exists?: http://vaislying.com/

Good point, Berta. "OTH" probably means to the Veteran: "Oh, by the way, you just fell through the cracks. You wont be getting any VA benefits until you fight for at least 14 years to get them." (The Vietnam war, according to VA, lasted from): Vietnam era (February 28, 1961 – May 7, 1975 for Veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam during that period; otherwise August 5, 1964 – May 7, 1975)