broncovet

Berta and Carlie are right. You did a good thorough job on your documentation, assuming, of course, your medical records support it. As Berta said, you need to "attack" their reasons and bases for a denial. You can attack reasons for denial in two main ways, errors of fact or errors of law: 1. You can attack factual basis, that is, if the decision states facts that you dispute. If the RO cites a medical report, then you can obtain and IMO or IME to dispute that medical practioner's opinion. 2. You can also attack the decision for legal reasons, that is, they did not (correctly) apply the regulations. If you are appealing at the BVA/DRO level, you can dispute facts that you consider in error. However, CAVC appeals generally do not change factual determinations. The usually involve legal issues. Keep in mind, if your appeal "keeps going" the higher courts generally dont allow factual disputes, and focus instead on errors of law. If you do have a factual dispute, you need to bring that up at the BVA level, and not wait until it gets to the CAVC level.

Wings.. I tried the link and it worked for me. There could be a couple reasons why it works on my computer and not yours. 1. You are infected with malware/spyware. Sometimes they "hijack" your links and redirect them to another site. 2. Possible issues with your internet service provider and/or proxy server. Your ISP could have "blocked" this website giving you an error. If you would like help disinfecting your computer from spyware, PM me and I will help.

Hearing loss for bilateral are "built in" to the rating schedule, as the schedule has the "poorer ear" built in. It is complicated to use, but, generally, unless your are profoundly deaf or have lots of speech discrimination, you rarely, if ever, go over 10% for hearing loss. Example: Even tho I cant watch tv or go to the movies without "closed captioning" but am still rated at just 10%. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/julqtr/pdf/38cfr4.85.pdf

Maybe, but dont listen to the DRO's words, and instead listen to his body language. He is putting on his poker face, of course, at the hearing, but he probably will forget to put his "poker face" on his body language also. JMHO.

[ Have you alienated the RO in any way? Why or for what reasons they would put the effort into coming up with this arguement for a HB ancillary benefit is beyond me? Check your PM as retaliation is certainly possible. I am guessing that they put this effort into HB because my decision came out not to long after Bradley Vs. Peake, and they did not want to pay housebound/SMC S, so they "threw me off" by putting the housebound into SMP, in a half hearted attempt to satisfy Bradley Vs. Peake's "100 plus 60" rule, without actually awarding any benefits.

John, Yes, they are saying I am housebound for NSC condition. And, yes, 100% P and T puts you well over the income limit for pension.

My RO seems to be similar to Pete's ...months behind. This must be the "new backlog". Before claims were backed up because of too much paper. Now, they are backed up electronically because they dont have time to update them. I wonder how long the backlog is for VA executives pay and bonuses...probably a million man and 4 or 5 years that VA execs have to wait on their bonus checks, right?

John When I read the regulations regarding SMP HOUSEBOUND, there is nothing there that says you cant get SMP housebound while also getting 100% Comp. It does say that to Get SMP housebound you have to also qualify for Pension, which I do, because I used to get pension before I was 100%. In fact, the regs seem to suggest the oppostite..that you can get SMP housebound with 100 percent compensation, because SMP Housebound is supposed to be IN ADDITION TO pension or compensation. DSGR Exactly...Rats in a maze, or maybe like turkeys waiting on a truck for their turn to become someones dinner. No, you cant go down the SMP isle..go to the SMC aisle. No you cant go to the SMC isle, go to the SMP isle. They both point the finger at each other..saying go that way.

Good advice, Pete, I am just not sure how to appeal an approval? I was approved for housbound.

4my boys It looks like you have done a thorough job so far. Frankly, I think you are right. It is CUE when the RO FAILS to "sympathetically read ALL the VEterans Evidence", because that is required by law..not any judgement call. Roberson vs Principii states: "Congress has mandated that the VA is “to fully and sympathetically develop the veteran’s claim to its optimum before deciding it on the merits.” Hodge, 155 F.3d at 1362 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 100-963, at 13 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5782, 5795). We see no basis for applying a different standard to a CUE claim, and we hold that the DVA is thus required to consider a CUE claim using the standard of Hodge." If You Read Roberson, you will know that the evidence did not "undebatedly" establish the claimants entitlement to TDIU, in fact, there was both evidence that supported and that refuted the Veterans claim. Still, the VA is REQUIRED to CONSIDER the Veteran for TDIU, even tho there was disagreement to whether or not the VEteran was entitled. The strict Cue standard does not get the VA off the hook, and they still must sympathetically read the VEterans claim and decide on its merits.

I am 100% P and T, and have been awarded SMP Housebound. The "catch 22" is that the VA says even tho I am "housebound" I fall into the cyber-hole of "no benefits" because: 1. I dont qualify for SMC S Housebound because I am "housebound" due to NSC conditions, even tho I am 100%. 2. I also dont qualify for SMP Housebound because I cant get Pension and Compensation at the same time. Has this happened to anyone else, and is there anything that can be done about it?

You wish! Only about 4% of Vets claims are awarded on the first try without an appeal, according to the GAO. The other 96% of Veterans who were awarded benefits got them in one or more levels of appeal.

If the DAV were really that interested in helping Vets, they would be OUTRAGED at a million man backlog and filing lawsuits against the VA. Nope, they quietly collect their free rent, and say, "Gee..I didnt know there was a million man backlog" and "Gee, I didnt know the VA shredded claims in 41 out of 57 RO's" Obviously, the VA does not want Vets to have lawyers. (However, the VA has 400 or so lawyers on staff, so they are not exactly anti-lawyer) Most people who know anything about law know that you dont want to face an adversary in court when he has a lawyer and you dont. Its not a fair fight at all. This is what the VA and the DAV wants..an unfair fight, where the mighty Va with 400 lawyers just crush some poor homeless Vet, stripping him of his benefits at their whim and he is defenseless without a lawyer. There is a reason why we have so many homeless Vets, and it is not because of a benevolent VA.

The DAV got on my bad side, when they spoke out AGAINST Vets getting lawyers about a couple years ago. They contend Vets dont need lawyers, they got DAV reps. Well, boneheads, if the DAV was doing such a great job, why are their so many homeless Vets trying to sue the VA because their DAV rep couldnt or wouldnt get them benefits? And why is the DAV threatened by a Vet with a lawyer? Why should the DAV be upset that a Vet hires a pro to obtain his benefits? No, I did/do smell a rat pushing the DAV into arguing against lawyers for Vets. Vets fought so that others accused of a crime are entitled to legal representation, so why do Vets deserve less? Remember, no one is suggesting a Vet be FORCED to hire a lawyer..only that he has the option of hiring one if the Vet thinks it will benefit him. This Vet is in charge of feeding his family, and by golly if he thinks hiring a lawyer will improve his chances of obtaining benefits, who in the heck is the DAV to try to stop him?

I tend to agree with Ranger. Remember the DAV gets "free rent" in many/most VAMC's and RO's. Have you ever heard of "there is no such thing as free rent"? Well, in my opinion the VA "gets" something for their free rent. Example: With the DAV constantly in Regional offices, why is it they "did not know" about the illegal shredding of Veterans evidence, until Larry Scott broke the Story in October 2008? Were they all that blind or incompetent? I doubt it. They just sort of "looked the other way" while the regional office "paid their rent". The DAV and VA are WAY WAY too cozy to suit me. That being said, you do need a VSO for some things. Tho the DAV may be some help, dont expect them to create any waves at the VA in order to help you. They wont. They just keep their mouth shut, collect their paycheck and their free rent. Many of them are too busy or too overworked to be any real help. They are also not consistently well trained. You may well find a good DAV rep, but he is probably going to be so busy he will be of little use to you. While Im sure there are many good intentioned, hard working DAV reps, the trouble is, they are not consistent. Its a crap shoot, so you better be careful or your benefits will get shot down.

Not so fast. I would not "run out and drop" your IU claim UNLESS you meet the SGE requirement, that is, unless you have had "substantial gainfull employment". This means you have had a "regular steady job" and earn more than about $10,000 per year, you probably dont qualify for IU. If you earned less, then that would NOT be SGE. Of course, you never want to lie to the VA about working, but if your employment has been sporadic or otherwise you earn under the minimum, then why drop IU?

I will take a guess that the VA interpreted your "material interference with employment " as an informal claim for IU. I am not sure why your lawyer asked you to ask for a "extra schedular rating". This would normally be requested if you did not meet the 40/70 "normal" requirement for IU, as in here: 4.16 Total disability ratings for compensation based on unemployability of the individual. (a) Total disability ratings for compensation may be assigned, where the schedular rating is less than total, when the disabled person is, in the judgment of the rating agency, unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service- connected disabilities: Provided That, if there is only one such disability, this disability shall be ratable at 60 percent or more, and that, if there are two or more disabilities, there shall be at least one disability ratable at 40 percent or more, and sufficient additional disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. For the above purpose of one 60 percent disability, or one 40 percent disability in combination, the following will be considered as one disability: (1) Disabilities of one or both upper extremities, or of one or both lower extremities, including the bilateral factor, if applicable, (2) disabilities resulting from common etiology or a single accident, (3) disabilities affecting a single body system, e.g. orthopedic, digestive, respiratory, cardiovascular-renal, neuropsychiatric, (4) multiple injuries incurred in action, or (5) multiple disabilities incurred as a prisoner of war. It is provided further that the existence or degree of nonservice-connected disabilities or previous unemployability status will be disregarded where the percentages referred to in this paragraph for the service- connected disability or disabilities are met and in the judgment of the rating agency such service-connected disabilities render the veteran unemployable. Marginal employment shall not be considered substantially gainful employment. For purposes of this section, marginal employment generally shall be deemed to exist when a veteran’s earned annual income does not exceed the amount established by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, as the poverty threshold for one person. Marginal employment may also be held to exist, on a facts found basis (includes but is not limited to employment in a protected environment such as a family business or sheltered workshop), when earned annual income exceeds the poverty threshold. Consideration shall be given in all claims to the nature of the employment and the reason for termination. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501) (b) It is the established policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs that all veterans who are unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disabilities shall be rated totally disabled. Therefore, rating boards should submit to the Director, Compensation and Pension Service, for extra-schedular consideration all cases of veterans who are unemployable by reason of service-connected disabilities, but who fail to meet the percentage standards set forth in paragraph (a) of this section. The rating board will include a full statement as to the veteran’s service- connected disabilities, employment history, educational and vocational attainment and all other factors having a bearing on the issue. [40 FR 42535, Sept. 15, 1975, as amended at 54 FR 4281, Jan. 30, 1989; 55 FR 31580, Aug. 3, 1990; 58 FR 39664, July 26, 1993; 61 FR 52700, Oct.

The obvious answer is to call this guy and ask him what is going on, and decide from there..you can post what he says. If you delay the hearing, it may be a long, long time before you get another one scheduled. Also, I have never heard of a VSO "scheduling an exam"..this is done by the RO. If a C and P exam is necessary to grant benefits, then you should most certainly tell the DRO that one has been scheduled. I am reluctant to suggest you reschedule your hearing..but you decide.

I dont know any reason why you could not do as you suggested...or even re apply after you "cancelled" it. Of course, as was pointed out, just because you can do something, doesnt necessarily mean you want to run out and do it. However, I am going to assume you have a compelling reason....I will take a wild guess and say you think you may get a certain job, but dont want your potential employer to know, and further feel you would not be eligible for benefits if you got this job. Everything at the Va is always a risk. If you apply for more benefits, you take the chance that someone looks at your file and says, "Gee, this guy doesnt deserve more, he already has more than he deserves and we will do a reduction". Of course, you dont need to tell the reason. But, the more clearly you explain your situation, the better the advice you get will be. That is, if you give a "generic" question, you are apt to get a "generic" answer.

I would like to know if there are Vets/widows/hadit members who would like/need computer questions answered. I wont go into my "bio" in too much detail, but I was trained on computers in the military in the 1970's, and have a college degree in MIS (as well as some certifications by a well known software company). With Tbird's OK, I will help Vets with their computer issues here, and post some things you can do to make your computer run better/faster. Of course, I have a limited amount of time that I can do this.

I just got a response back from IRIS with no (computer) issues. One last thing you can try. Whatever you did the last time, try something different: For example, Try this link: https://iris.va.gov/scripts/iris.cfg/php.exe/enduser/home.php It should go to the Va without a proxy server.

Congratulations! So, did they give you 50% for Sleep Apnea Secondary to one of your other conditions, or how did it work? Thanks

I went through the same thing, and yes, it will slow things down. (The VA uses every possible excuse to delay your claim, because it is money in their pocket) That being said, the failure of a past employer to send in your paperwork should not be a deal breaker. What they did is put the "returned" letter in my file..it should not count against you in the end. It is one of those things that the VA does which is unnecessary. The Social Security has records of the money you make and they can check with them to see if you are working. It does lay a trap for Vets, because your old employer can sabatoge things for you. Its one more hurdle to get past. You can try downloading the form, going to your old employer, getting them to sign it, make a copy, and then send it to the VA. That is "hand carry" your paperwork.

Veterans can pay people to cut their grass, too, even tho there may well be people out there who will cut your grass for free, too. I think Vets deserve a choice. Pay someone to help you. Get free help. Do it yourself. While it is certainly true there are several organizations that offer help to Vets for filing claims, sometimes, getting something for free is not always the best bargain. Hypothetical example: You ask VSO for help. VSO is swamped, and has 9000 claims pending at the same time. Your paperwork gets lost in the shuffle. "Lay Person" charges you $100, is competent and not overworked..getting all your I's dotted and T's crossed, getting your benefits quickly the first time. (Lets assume for a minute the VA does not mess it up, and, of course, that is a ficticious falacy. That being said, its better to at least get the paperwork to the VA right the first time, and you can take your chances that you will be in the 4% who gets their benefits the first time). Sometimes a "free" VSO is not a bargain. Its always a judgement call. Caveat: There are all kinds of scams on the internet. Dont put it past scammers to target Vets, and offer to help them with their claims..just send name address, social security number, phone, mothers maiden name, bank and credit card numbers with expiration dates. Yea right...

One way to find out if this problem is on your computer or the server (the VA IRIS system), go to a different computer, such as the library, and see if the problem repeats itself. Then it is unlikely to be a problem with your computer. And, yes, I like the suggestion that you try a different browser...I sent an IRIS last week with google chrome browser, and it seemed to work good, except that I have not received a response from the VA yet. Finally, try doing a disk cleanup, and disk defragmenter, and it would not hurt to clean your registry either.