broncovet

There is a rumor that there are "hidden" VA benefits? Is it true? YES!! Try finding this one on the VA website Please, post YOUR hidden benefit you found out about! 1. Free phone for (some) Hard of Hearing Veterans. Your doctor or audiologist may have to approve it, and you will definitely have to ask for it. The audiologist will have to think it will help you.

I have seen on this board quite a few people talk about ebenefits. I have access to my ebenefits, and it tells you almost nothing, IMHO. I would not stress yourself if you cant get in..you are not missing anything. Its mostly a "political spin". The president mentioned the "blue button", and tho I dont recall what exactly what he said about the VA's ebenefits and the "blue button", he kinda "hyped" them and made it sound like a Vet could get his medical records online. I have not found ONE person who has gotten medical records online, tho you can order prescription drugs on myhealthy vet, and you have been for some time. Before all, or even most Veterans could possibly access their medical records online, I think it will take a minimum of 5 years and more likely a decade or more. If each of 29 million Veterans medical records averaged 500 pages (mine is at least 10 times that), I estimate that 145 Billion pages of data will need to be scanned in. If the VA could scan in Ten Million Pages per day, average (and I have no idea how they could scan in that many), it would take 1450 days (or about 4 years) to scan them in. (I think I have all my zeros in the right place)

And yes, your right Carlie. The VBA manipulates it to make it come out the way they want in the first place...BUT if they try to manipulate it too much, then we can appeal, and, hopefully the CAVC will overturn the post hoc rationalizations. The judge is not supposed to make a decision until after he has heard the evidence. John.. Its probably too late for me to get a lawyer at this point..claim has already been certified to the BVA. But, if denied at the BVA, yes, I will get a lawyer as I dont think I want to go to the CAVC without one again.

What is a "119"?

THE VETERAN does not have to specify a diagnosis to be awarded benefits...he can specify symptoms. In fact, The Veteran is rarely a medical professional competent to diagnose illnesses, so the Veteran need only specify symptoms to meet the Brokowski test, IMHO. When the Veteran specifies a diagnosis, yes, sure he can still proabably get benefits, based on what the doc reports are his symptoms. (IMHO VA compensates Vets on symptoms, not diagnosis...one example of this is you probably will get little, if any, benefits if you have an asymptomatic illness. In other words if this malady causes you no symptoms, then the VA is not going to pay you.) The problem with applying for benefits using a diagnosis, is that the C and P examiner may not agree with this diagnosis. He may say you have something else..or nothing at all. In other words Doc A could think your symptoms are "depression", while Doc B may say you have Bipolar disorder or something else, and they could have similar symptoms. It is your C and P examiners to make a diagnosis, not the Veteran. The Brokowski test is used to identify issues, which does not necessarily mean you will be awarded benefits. To be awarded benefits, you first have to apply, and identify issues or "specify the benefit sought". Until you have met that criteria, in theory at least, you cant be awarded benefits. If you cant get benifits because a VA doc did not give you a diagnosis, then the obvious answer is to seek an IME or IMO, where another doc may give you a diagnosis.

I have wondered why sometimes people seem to get their informal claims called an informal claim, while other times it seems like the VA says that just because you visit the VA doc, does not necessarily mean you want to apply for that benefit. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims narrowly interprets the VA duty to fully and sympathetically develop the veterans claim to its optimum by determining all potential claims raised by the evidence. whether a claim for service connection for condition X requires VA to adjudicate a claim for service connection for condition Y (as well as condition X) turns on what the veteran or representative said during the time that the claim for condition X was being considered by VA. As the CAVC put it in Brokowski v. Shinseki the VA has no obligation to adjudicate a claim for service connection for condition Y unless the record . . . satisfie all three requirements for an informal claim for disability compensation for [condition Y]. The Brokowski test: (in my own words) 1. The Claim must be written. Telling the doc something means nothing unless he wrote it in your records. 2. There must be an "intent" for the Veteran to apply for benefits. 3. The Veteran must "specify the benefit sought". I will add here that by specifying the benefit sought, this does not mean the Veterans specifies a diagnosis, where symptoms will suffice.

I agree. The remand gives you an opportunity to submit "additional evidence" which may or may not fit the definition of "new and material evidence". Like you, I am trying to get the VA to "read" that I applied for benefits back in 2002, that is, to recognize certain statements I made as "reasonably raised" claims by the record. In that way, our claims are at least somewhat similar. I think I am going to post some rules on what constitutes an informal claim per Brokowski, which may help.

Berta... I used to think the RO can't read either. However, I am putting a paragraph in my appeal that goes something like this: "The Veteran has contended the RO shredded evidence. Fast letter 08-41 would apply, in this instance, and, depending on the date shredded, the RO has to either accept the Veterans statement that he submitted it, or accept it with corroborating evidence...and the Veteran has submitted corroborating evidence. (List evidence). The RO, however, has not yet admitted to shredding. Their explanation is so unlikely, it would be very close to the "impossible" category. This is what would have had to have happened, if the RO did not shred my evidence. No less than 5 employees would have to have been instantly afflicted with ADD which caused them to be unable to read and interpret the Veterans statement, "I have not been able to get a job" into a claim for TDIU...and, then, after putting the Veterans evidence down, the ADD affliction miraciously goes away, never to reappear again. Those 5 employees are 2 Regional Office Rating speciailits who rated the claim, plus an experience Decision Review Officer, Plus an assistant to a BVA judge and a BVA judge. Personally I think the RO shredded the evidence as I dont beleive the VA would hire that many people with intermittent mental disorders to process claims, because this would mean every RO employee touching the claim was afflicted with the same disorder...Triage, development, Post Decision, Supervisors, Star Review...all of these people would not be able to make this simple interpretation.

The effective date of when you first applied also applies to a "pending" claim. To me it would be very confusing to be other wise. YOu apply for benefits. Then 3 months later you have a C and P exam. Then, two months later, you send in an IME. What is the effective date? Well the date you applied, not the date you sent in more evidence, of course, because its a pending claim. Instead, had this claim been denied, but you later tried to reopen, you lose your effective date and the new effective date becomes the date you resubmitted new evidence to reopen. I think that is what the case I posted is about. I am trying to find a chart that I saw, I think it was in the VBM, which shows all the senarios...CUE, NOD, denial, reopen, etc, effect on the effective date, to help us make a good decision on which way to go. If I read the case right....in summary, "FIGHT, Fight, for your appeal. Keep fighting until you have exhausted everything...BVA, CAVC Federal courts, Writ, CUE, etc...and only then reopen with N and M evidence, because you will bust your effective date otherwise.

Carlie The difference is the effective date. Yes, N and M can reopen a claim, but when you go that route, you hurt your effective date. However, since your claim is remanded, you can submit new evidence and the effective date will be when you first applied. I think I have that right. This is an example of what I mean: https://www.judicialview.com/Court-Cases/Veterans/Effective-Date-for-Disability-Cannot-be-Earlier-Than-Claim-to-Reopen/Board-Lacks-Jurisdiction-to-Consider-Error-in-RO-Decision/36/2517

Yes, I did not want to rain on anyone's parade, but my ebenefits has said my claim is "closed" for about 8 months, and I think it is no where near even close, as I just got my claim "Certified" by the BVA, so I am thinking maybe year 2012...I really do not expect anything this year. Yes, I did hear one person who posted that their ebenenefits said "closed" and then got a decision within a month or so. Like so, so many other things, RO's are not consistent with ebenefits, as WAC pointed out. One RO has em enter it into ebenefits right away...the others may do it in a few weeks, while others may not bother at all. While I can certainly appreciate waiting with "baited breath" on the magic envelope...after as many disappointments as I have gone through, I make a conscious effort not to "micromanage" where my claim is at. It is where it is, and the pot will boil when it gets hot enough. Find something you love to do as an alternative. I know you have things you want to buy...and I am sure you have VERY good reasons why you want (and need!) the money now. Looking back on it tho...even tho I did NOT get my money in time to prevent foreclosure...and I lost my home waiting on VA benefits, I did manage by the hair of my chinney chin chin to avoid not having a roof over my head. I was homeless but was able to find shelter and not live on the street. In the bigger scheme of things...five years from now it wont make much difference whether you get it tommorrow, next week, in six months, or have to appeal again and it takes 4 more years. Use this time to make improvements to your person. I know I have a long ways to go..but I bet there are some things you would like to get better at, too. You know, like being a better spouse..or parent..or friend..

I agree that this BVA decision maker seems to be confusing Pension with Bradley vs Peake, which have nothing to do with each other. However, I do not think this BVA decision maker is unique, because the regulations kind of intertwine Pension and Compensation, especially when addressing "housebound". It seems there are TWO "housebounds". One for pension and one for Compensation, which means SMC.

Berta said, Are they saying if you have 100% and not TDIU then the VA can combine additional SC to meet the 60 for the 100% plus 60 SC "S" award? This is the way I get it too. One problem I see with Bradley Vs Peake is because TDIU is often denied as "moot" whenever the Vet qualifies for 100%...but it would not necessarily be "moot" in that the Veteran would qualify for SMC under Bradley, if they WERE awarded TDIU and 100%. In my case, the VA denied SMC and awarded SMP "housebound". (with no compensation). Their theory was that I met Bradley vs Peake "housebound" 100 plus 10, plus 10, plus 50, but the 50 percent was for non service connected conditions, so that meant that I do not get SMC for housebound, but get SMP for housebound and no compensation, because SMP is less than 100% total, and I get the greater of the two, but cant get both. Since the premise of TDIU says Total disability due to individual unemployabilty-should TDIU vets file for and request 100% instead of the TDIU? The reverse would also apply...Should 100% Vets apply also for TDIU? Unfortunately, a 100% Vet who applied for TDIU would almost automatically denied as "moot". It appears that TDIU opened up a whole bunch of legal challenges, not the least of which is WAC's.

Thank you Carlie. This is basically what I had hoped for even tho it may not have that good of an end result for you..did you win benefits with the RO remand? While the 2004 RO decision has became "moot", it sounds like it enabled you to submit evidence. This is critical, because evidence that I submit today in this regard would be considered as if I had submitted it back in 2002. Or, at least that is the way I interpret it. I think I want my claim "pending" because the Ro failed to file the required SOC. Of course if its Pending, I can submit additional evidence.

The Vet rep thing is in disarray, similar to the claim. Yes, I have a national DAV rep, with an office in Cincinatti and also at the RO. His phone is perpetually busy and I have tried for days to reach him, until I have given up. Then I got a letter from a national DAV rep in Cleveland, that I have never met or heard of, who sounds like he was "representing" me. I dont even know how that happened...possibly the Cinci DAV rep knew he was not giving me justice as he had too many claims..and assigned me to some DAV rep in Cleveland. Incredibly, the RO contacted me by IRIS, when I had inquired about something else, and stated they needed a POA. I explained that DAV had been my POA for years..and I had multiple letters from them over the years. While I have no doubt that my POA ALSO had been shredded, the RO would not admit that either..and later said, "oh..yes you are right the DAV is your POA".

Berta.. In reference to the 4 RO promises: #1. No, a "deferred" TDIU decision never happened. TDIU was denied as "moot" in 2009 because I was awarded 100%. #2 Yes, those claim were both denied. #3 Yes, I finally received an increase 2 years later on the issue of increase for depression. #4 Maybe. I received a RO decision in 2008, which I appealed, which somewhat accomplished this. None of these 4 are pending at the BVA. Most of the 4 promises are probably "harmless error" now that I have received 100 percent except that my effective date is still in dispute. Had I been awarded TDIU in 2002, that I had applied for, I would have gotten 5 years more of benefits than the 100% awarded effective in 2007. My beef is that I am entitled to 5 years more retro.

I agree with Berta's assesment that "Reading 101" needs to be taught to the VARO. In my initial application for benefits, I stated, ........."I have been unable to get a job". I contend this document was shredded. The RO has not admitted to shredding, BUT if it was not shredded, then at least 4 decision makers were unable to read that and interpret it to mean a TDIU claim.

Thanks for the responses. The CAVC is number 07-3214-Writ . I was able to pull up the judges decision with this link. http://search.vetapp.gov/isysquery/c3079769-a11c-4cca-af82-a421c209bb18/1/details/ The VA manager stated there that "several significant VA actions are required", then listed the things that would "take place in a timely manner". I think a lawyer is a good idea..but making that happen is not so easy. First, there is only one VA lawyer in my city, who has quit representing Veterans. When I spoke to the lawyer, McDonald and McDonald, they said that it took the VA too long, and they could not afford to hold out that many years to get paid, and focus on Social Security instead. I sent my file to Doug Rosinski, who opted to decline representation, probably because his win with some big cases enabled him to be extremely selective which cases he takes, and my case was far to complicated for him to waste his time even reading over 5000 pages. (I think he won the "laptop" case of about 29 million dollars) There are only about 400 VA experienced lawyers, thats only about an average of 8 per state, while there are thousands and thousands of Veterans needed representation. My cfile is probably 5000 pages (an "apple box" full of papers), but, the RO only has about 600 pages, probably due to shredding. (My most recent request of my C file yielded about 3 inches of papers), when my actual file has 8 times that much.

This is a "challenge" problem for the most talented and skilled VA law researchers. If there are any "TOP DOG" VSO's/ hadit members, then read on. The rest of us, including me, will probably get lost in VA speak. I filed a NOD in 2004. The VARO failed to supply the Required SOC, or even acknowledge the NOD. I know they received the NOD because it was "date stamped" and marked by the RO as an "appeal" and a copy was sent back to me when I requested copies of my C file. I filed a "Writ of Mandamus" and complained, among other things, that the RO failed to file the required SOC. The RO manager responded in testimony to the CAVC that the RO "interpreted (the NOD) as a claim for benefits". This was not true...I have never been awarded or denied any benefits consistent with the effective date of the 2004 NOD. Of course, the Writ was denied, but not before the RO manager made some promises to the CAVC. One of the promises made was that the RO would "defer" my TDIU issue, which never happened. Later, the RO made other decisions and I now have an appeal before the Board, where I am mostly appealing the effective date of a 2009 RO decision. I am trying to figure out how the failure to file the SOC will apply. While I will admit my 2004 NOD was "iffy", the RO made it clear by writing "appeals" on it that it was an NOD. I think that keeps things pending back to 2004...enabling me to resubmit evidence now relevant to 2004, or more precisely, 2002 because the 2004 RO decision was the implementation of a Board decision of a 2002 RO claim. I know this is a can of worms..it is even worse when I supply all the details..I am trying to keep it as simple as possible. 1. Do you think the RO failure to file the required SOC will render my claim "pending" back to 2002, enabling me to submit evidence which would apply all the way back to then? 2. Is a subsequent RO decision, awarding partial benefits, that I did not appeal, going to muddy this up? I think that I am entitled to appealate review..and that a RO decsion awarding less than the max does not make up for RO failure to file SOC. Yes, I have alleged shredding in 2008...thousands of pages of my C file have disappeared. I want them to consider certain evidence, which corroborates my position that I applied for ALL my benefits back in 2002, and not just hearing loss, rendering 2002 as my effective date. Whew..Hope I didnt lose you.

Yes. I am going to remember to thank my doc for writing in my C and P exam, "Veteran is competent to handle his own finances" Its on the vawatchdogtoday.org website. VAwatchdog is Larry Scotts..the Old Watchdog..also very good for reference material.

Congratulations, Wac You just bested "the other boards" best. The BVA judge "has spoken" : Bradley VS Peake ratings are added not combined. VARO's are doing it wrong. I am considering going back to the other board and post this decision, and rub it in their face, if someone else does not do it first. This is what happens when you do a good job in preparation...well not all the time, but I could tell you had done your 5 P's. I learned about the 5 P's from my brother's son. He races motorcycles. He was expected to win the race. He started out very well, in first place. Then he ran out of gas. He pushed the bike back into the pits. My brother said, "Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance" He never forgot that. I haven't either. I heard Tiger Woods has a "Golf Swing Coach". I would not have thought he needed one, but then he is better prepared than I am.

I will add this: Chapter 35 benefits are paid to the child in college. However, dependents benefits for having a school age child over 18 is paid to the Veteran. The Veteran then decides how much, if any, he will give that child to go to school. The dependents amount is added to the Vets disability check, according to the disability rating chart, with a link below. If the Veteran is rated 100 percent P and T, then your decision should say, "Entitled to Chapter 35 benefits" But..you still have to apply for Chapter 35 AND the child has to apply, both. Yes, the VA can deny those, sometimes, too.

For your child to get Chapter 35 benefits, The sponsor (the disabled Veteran who is a parent) has to be 100% Permanent and Total disabled. However, to get college age dependents benefits, you do not have to be P and T, but have a Service connected disability rated at 30% or more, and, of course, have a child in college and prove that to the VA.

Chapter 35 and dependents benefits for children over 18 and in college are seperate issues...actually they are mutually exclusive of each other. If you have a child in college, over 18, you do NOT get the extra IF they are are using chapter 35 benefits. Source: Phone call from the VA. If your college age child is receiving Chapter 35 benefits, it has been increased to $936 for full time students. Source: My own son, who is currently receiving Ch. 35, which is deposited to a joint account with his name and mine. If your child is college age, then you get from $72 at 30% to 240 at 100 percent. Source: http://www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/rates/comp01.htm The "college age" rates are at the bottom of the chart in yellow.