broncovet

Good advice. Do the math. If you are 40% disabled and get $500 per month (Im using round numbers..and not applying dependents). If you get TDIU at the 100% rate at $2600 per month (again, round numbers) and it would be effective the date you apply. That is, in this case it costs you $2100 per month (2600-500) to wait, for each month you wait. How many $2100 do you want to "throw away" by delaying applying?

I hope you didnt miss James Breckenridge's Post...I will post it again, because I think that many of us are unaware of this: "Fun fact: since all of the conditions share a common etiology/body system, they count as a single 60 percent disability, which meets the baseline criteria for individual unemployability. A doctor would still have to opine upon whether it actually stops you from working."

Its about time. The Supreme Court decided to hear the case. There have been instances reported of a Veteran timely filing an appeal, the the RO "sitting" on the appeal until its too late to file. Its about time Vets get their issues resolved on their merits, and not based upon which RO they are in. Here is the story: [url=http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/BergmannMoore/~3/UIuS-qcLLTg/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email] Posted: 07 Jul 2010 01:34 PM PDT Recently, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari for Henderson v. Shinseki, which means that it has agreed to hear the Veteran’s appeal of the denial of his claim by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Fed Circuit”). It is not expected for the Supreme Court to issue a decision until at least early next year. The issue that the Supreme Court will consider is whether the statutory 120-day time limit for filing a notice of appeal (“NOA”) (found at 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a)) to the Court of Appeals for Veterans’ Claims (“CAVC”) constitutes a statute of limitations subject to the doctrine of equitable tolling (meaning, exceptions to the filing deadline can be made) or whether the time limit is jurisdictional and does not allow any exceptions. While this is a very technical issue, it is extremely important. It has been estimated that approximately 2 appeals a week are denied because they are too late. If the time deadline is deemed jurisdictional, it does not matter why the appeal is late. It could be – as in Mr. Henderson’s case – that the service-connected condition itself prevented a timely appeal. Or, it could be that the Veteran sent the appeal within 120 days to the BVA or RO rather than to CAVC, and VA held onto the NOA until after the deadline expired. Regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, it is highly recommended that if you wish to appeal to CAVC, you submit your appeal within 120 days, if at all possible. To review the general VA disability claims process, claims are typically decided originally by a Regional Office. If denied, the claimant (a Veteran or eligible dependent) can appeal to the BVA in Washington, DC. If denied by the BVA, then the claimant can appeal to the CAVC. In limited circumstances, a denial by the CAVC can be appealed to the Fed Circuit. If denied by the Fed Circuit, the claimant can ask the Supreme Court to consider the case. All of these appeals have time limits and other requirements. In Mr. Henderson’s case, the BVA denied entitlement to special monthly compensation in August 2004. More than 120 days after the BVA decision was mailed to him, his NOA was received in January 2005. He was ordered to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. He asked for an extension to file his NOA because his service-connected disability had prevented him from filing it on time. He provided a letter from a psychiatrist to support this assertion. In a single-judge decision, the Court dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Henderson requested that the CAVC’s dismissal be reconsidered, and his request was granted and submitted to a panel of 3 judges. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court decided Bowles v. Russell which addressed the nature of NOA’s in the Federal appellate courts. In Bowles, the Supreme Court held that in Federal appellate courts, the filing of a NOA is a jurisdictional requirement – with the effect that the filing deadline is a hard and fast rule – rather than statute a limitations. If the filing deadline were viewed as a statute of limitations, it would be subject to “equitable tolling” – meaning that exceptions could be made to the filing deadline in certain circumstances. Mr. Henderson argued to the CAVC that Bowles did not apply to his claim at the CAVC and that a previous Fed Circuit case, Bailey v. West, establishing that equitable tolling was allowed in his situation, was still the precedent to follow. VA argued that CAVC should follow Bowles and find that the 120-day deadline was now a bright-line rule that could not be excused for any reason. In 2008, the CAVC found that Bowles applied, that Mr. Henderson’s NOA was untimely, and that his appeal must be dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction. Notably, one of the 3 judges dissented. In 2009, the Fed Circuit, in a panel decision by 12 judges, affirmed the CAVC’s dismissal of Mr. Henderson’s claim for lack of jurisdiction. The majority of the Fed Circuit panel agreed with CAVC that the time deadline for filing the NOA was a jurisdictional requirement and not subject to equitable tolling. It overruled its previous decision in Bailey and another similar decision in light of Bowles. Three judges dissented, noting that Bowles did not discuss much less overrule the Supreme Court’s long line of case affirming equitable tolling and that other circuit courts of appeals had found that equitable tolling survived Bowles in the context of filing deadlines.

Not knowing much more about this, other than what it says below, it sounds like a good thing for Veterans: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/07/05/veterans-disability-protection-act-of-2010-vdpa/

Its a significant step in claims processing. Instead of having 1,000,000 claim backlog, we will have a 0 backlog and a 1.1 million backlog of appeals, which take about 8 times longer than claims.

Hoppy... It is an honor to you that you would consider such an endeavor. If I would have known you were available, I would have had you "rep" me, because I know that you have a really thorough background in Work Comp law, and are an "expert" at research for Veterans. (Of course, I would also love to have Berta as a rep, but so would most of the other 1,000,000 Veterans waiting on the VA.) JMHO, but I cant really see that much advantage for either of you for you to go on record as his rep. You can do pretty much the same things without the formality of being his rep, just have him sign the documents you help him to prepare. Im suggesting you be his "informal advisor", instead. This would help keep the Veteran "in the loop"...even if he signs stuff without ever reading it. It would be more trouble for you, to have to run him down every time you want to send in required paperwork for him, as the VA requires oceans of paperwork, as you know. Whatever works out best for you and the Veteran is certainly okay by me, as I certainly dont understand this Veterans claim as well as you do.

Joe I agree with you, and think you have gotten some great advice by some of the best at hadit. We all know that the VA will "delay you to death" if they get a chance. Dont let em "sit on your claim". Secretary Shinseki wants to be able to "stay" Veterans claims not because they are not already doing that now, but because he knows Veterans do have some remedies for these delays. My suggestions: 1. Stay on top of your claim and respond promptly to any letters they send you. (VCAA letters, for example, have a form you need to sign and return) The VA would LOVE to be able to put your file in the "abandoned claim" file. 2. "Stir things up". Did you know, for example, you can apply for an "Advance on the docket" at the BVA if you have a "hardship" and certainly your "medical conditions" warrant an Advance on the docket. Be careful tho, and remember DOCUMENT EVERY PIECE OF PAPER YOU SEND TO THE VA by keeping a copy and sending it certified return receipt requested, and/or send it through your VSO who can sometimes document VA repeipt of your document for you. 3. Consider filing a Writ of Mandamus at the CAVC, tho that needs to be done last, after the other stuff. 4. If you think stuff has been shredded, go ahead and file a "Special Handling Request" (SHR) per Dr. Peak's fast letter 08-14. Even tho you may not qualify for Special handling based on their limiting dates, there is some doubt that the VA can limit this to shredded evidence only to 2008-2009. It was illegal for the Va to shred evidence prior to 2008, and it is still illegal after 2009. If you do file a SHR, you can send an IRIS every couple months or so and check on it, stirring things up. (The VA wants to make the shredding incident "go away" very badly). If you are not sure you have shredded evidence, you probably do, since this shredding was widespread, with the VAOIG finding evidence of it in something like 41 of 58 Regional Offices.

The VA has both INFERRED and INFORMAL CLAIMS, and this condition is probably one of them. I am guessing you dont like the condition he is rated for because another condition may possibly get a higher rating? I dont know how long it has been since the decision, but if it is more than a year, to "fix" it requires you file a Clear Unmistakable Error claim. (CUE). The CUE standard is much harder to meet than a "regular" timely filed appeal, however, it sounds like Clear Errror if they rated you for the wrong condition. A " harmless" error is not CUE, you have to demonstrate not only that it was in error, but that the error was MATERIAL.

My two cents: If this is a proposed reduction, you definately should "fight" it. If it has already been reduced, and you did not fight it, it will be much tougher to "get it back". That being said, you are either Service Connected for a condition, or you are NOT service connected. I dont think they say you are 10% is from military 90% is from something else. The reductions I am familiar with are all that the condition improved. If your friends condition had sustained improvement, that is improvement over time that stays improved, you probably wont win. However, unless the condition has gotten better, you should be able to fight the proposed reduction. I think u have a legit gripe..they already "service connected" it, and, unless it showed improvement, then a reduction is improper. How long has he been SC'd for this condition? This is critical. Over 20 years..no way they can reduce except for fraud. Over 10, still hard to reduce. Less than 5 years..they can reduce fairly easily, but still have to give u notice of proposed reduction. JHMO

Basically, the DRO will review your evidence and either award your benefits, or issue you a Statement of Case for you to appeal to the BVA. If you Get a SOC, you will need to file an I9 appeal to the BVA.

Congratulations! I agree with Bill in that you should probably get a trusted financial advisor. The average widow, regardless of the size of the life insurance policy, is "broke" after just 2 short years. I dont think that statistic would be any different with DIC Retro. You may want to consider an annuity. Why? Well lets just say you get a lump sum..I will just throw a number in the air and say $100,000 but I dont know how much your retro will be. If you get the lump sum, and you spend it unwisely, you will not have anything. But, lets say you invest it into an annuity. I dont have the numbers immediately available, but I am going to take a guess that $100,000 annuity would get you about $500 to $700 per month for the rest of your life depending on the interest rates of the annuity. This would be monthly income you could spend every month, and get it again next month, so you wouldnt "run out" of money. Of course, I am not making financial advice, as I certainly dont know what would be best for you, but it would be something you may want to look into further.

Justrluk Yes, what you are asking would be nice. If there is someone we could talk to that is handling our claim, then we could possibly straighten things out. With my bank, for example, I have a "personal banker" that I always deal with that knows my situation and helps me take care of any issues that happen. It builds a position of trust. The VA, however, wants to go another route, and wonders why they have lost Veterans trust. They want us to be a number, and the employees, also are a "number", so that there is never any personal relationship or any way ever to fix problems. They just have Vets fill out still another form which, more often than not, gets lost in a "sea" of lost forms, creating a bureaucratic nightmare with appeal after appeal being the norm. The Va insists on doing things the most complicated, least efficient way possible. It took them 3 decades to reduce the application form from 23 pages to 11..I should think this should take one or two months, tops. If you ever do reach someone on the phone who could or would be helpfull to you, they make sure you dont have his or her phone number. The VA works very hard at making sure you dont know who made the decision on your claim, in part, because they know you may well be mad at that individual VA employee (often for some very good reasons). It is just one of the things wrong with the Va...one that could be fixed, but WONT be fixed, in part out of fear that a Veteran is going to get mad and possibly be violent. Of course, judges, police officers, etc., can/do make people mad, but they dont seem to get killed that much more than anyone else. By the way, did you know what one of the most dangerous occupations is? Convenience store clerks are murdered doing their job more often than the police. I think the Va should instill some pride..enough pride to put your name on that decision. If a police officer can wear his name tag if/when he arrests you, I think that Va employees should put their name on the decision they write. JMHO

Yes, they did give me hearing aids without a hassle, but, yes, you will probably have to see a ENT doc also, mostly he checks to see if your ear canal is clogged with wax. Of course, if that is the reason you cant hear, they will clean out the wax.

As long as the "fox guards the henhouse", (the VAOIG), Veterans can be assured of zero improvement in the VA. In a nutshell, the "fox" keeps track of the numbers, so that he can make Adolph Hitler out to be a "friend of the jew", and Shinseki's "benefit improvement plan" to be a "friend of the Veteran", when the opposite is true. Aka cannot "Improve" Veterans Disability Claims Processing without adding to the budget, and, since they are not willing to do that, the Same Old Same Old will continue. The VAOIG ensures that NO VETERANS will benefit, that ONLY VAOIG and VA executives benefit from any changes. Bottom LIne: Veterans loose and VA executives continue their fraud.

This is not "The VA Benefit Improvement Act". It is even worse than "Lipstick on a Pig"..its more like Lipstick on a the Wolf Guarding the Hen House! Instead, it needs to be renamed for what it is, which is "The VA benefit Reduction Act". In addition to Shinseki's proposal to make it easier for the BVA to deny, this proposal seeks to: 1. Allow the VA to "stay" Veterans claims, that is to delay them indefinitely without a good reason. We need this like we need a hole in our head. This will give the VA an excuse to ignore congressional investigations as to why The VA has delayed some Veterans claims 10 or more years! And Lawyers for Veterans who try to get their claims pushed through will be frustrated with the VA's "stay" of the claim. We dont need Veterans claims "stayed"...we need them "paid", instead. 2. Shorten the 1 year appeal period to 180 days. This means that more Veterans will loose out of benefits..denied because of an untimely appeal. The VA ALREADY has an unlimited time to process claims, and now they want to FURTHER REDUCE and restrict Veterans from appealing. Bottom line is that MORE VETERANS will get denied benefits...not because they dont deserve those benefits, but because they were late in filing an appeal. If You are a VA executive, Shinseki's proposal is good for you, as it will mean more Veterans claims are denied, so you will get a bigger bonus. However, if You are a Veteran, this Proposal is Poison, and not even in a small dose.

I think I understand, and feel that both these views are good. 1. First, we think of CUE to be applied to a final decision where the Vet did not appeal it within the one year time frame, so I agree with PR on that. Of course, this works, but it requires a higher level of proof for a "CUE" claim than for a traditional, timely filed NOD appeal. For this reason, I dont see why one would make it any harder on themself to "CUE" an appeal, if it were not necessary to meet the strict CUE standard, but instead of a CUE, simply file the NOD on time. 2. That being said, I still agree with Berta, but take "asking the VA to CUE themselves" not INSTEAD of filing an appeal, but IN ADDITION TO filing a timely filed NOD. Frankly, I dont see why you cant "Ask the VA to Cue themselves" like Berta suggests, but if the VA wont do that, you can still timely file an NOD within the one year time frame. I have seen where professional fishermen use MULTIPLE HOOKS that catch more fish than a single hook. My advice is to take both Berta's and PR's advice by 1) Asking the VA to cue themselves AND 2) Make sure you file a timely filed NOD (unless Asking them to Cue themselves works within the one year period).

If you are IU, you need to send in a form every year stating that you are still unemployed. If you dont send that form in, even if you dont get it, your benefits can be reduced, or even eliminated. Most people think that 100% schedular is better than IU, tho I am not disputing for one moment what Pete said. IU pretty much eliminates the chance you could ever go back to work, but if you are 100% Schedular, such as Mr. McCain or Max Cleland, you can work if you over come those disabilities like these people did. However, if you have a mental disability, such as 100% for PTSD and go back to work, you are at risk for having your benefits reduced. It seems rather discriminatory to me..if you over come a physical handicap such as those mentioned, you are a hero, but if you overcome a mental illness such as PTSD, you are considered a fraud. I dont agree with their philosophy. I think if you can overcome your mental illness and work, its no different than overcoming physical challenges such as missing arms or legs. The movie "I am Sam" tells about a mentally handicapped individual who overcame his mental challenges and was able to work.

I object to the VA forcing me into a "savings account at 0% interest" by delaying claims for years. The VA lists me as "competent to manage my finances", so I dont need the Va telling me I need to open this savings account where I may never live to withdraw any of it. Often Vets become homeless because they cant make "rent" because "the savings account is frozen" while the VA takes their sweet time to process the application. Justice delayed is justice denied, and these appeal delays sometimes run for decades. It is not right that the VA does this to Veterans.

Berta.. I think the VA often cites the date of the C and P exam as the "date entitlement arose" even tho the Veteran had symptoms of it much earlier and applied earlier. This suggests that the Veteran applied for ......... benefit "predicting" that he would have symptoms of it as of the date of the C and P exam, when, in fact, the Veteran most often already had symptoms and applied for benefits...its just that it was not FULLY documented for VA purposes until the date of the C and P exam. Most of the time the VA C and P examiner does not state something like.."Veteran has had symptoms of this condition since ........date" Instead, the examiner does not give an "onset of symptoms" date, and lets the VA assume the onset of symptoms was the C and P exam date. This is absurd and almost never happens. It implies that the Veteran did NOT have the condition prior to the C and P exam, but somehow GOT the condition at the C and P exam! If I went to a C and P exam well and left the exam sick (with a disability), this implies that the C and P examiner caused the disability! One of the problems here is the difference between Symptoms and diagnosis. The Va is supposed to compensate for symptoms, not a diagnosis. In fact, if the Veteran is diagnosed but is asymptomatic, he almost never gets compensation. A diagnosis is not enough...for example, the criteria for depression discusses symptoms, not a diagnosis. I think there is some manipulation going on here by the VA. I think they suggest that well, we are not giving the Veteran a nickel until a doc gives a diagnosis. One example may demonstrate. Veteran gets a leg blown off in Vietnam. Veteran suffers from symptoms of a missing leg..phantom pain, has to get around without use of leg, etc. However, the Veteran may not be DIAGNOSED as an amputee until, maybe years later, or he may never be diagnosed! There may well have not been a physician available who is willing/able to diagnosis this! Does this mean the effective date should be when the doc diagnosed the Veteran was an amputee, or the date the Vet got his leg blown off? I think the regulations support the SYMPTOMS theory..not the date of the diagnosis, which could be days or years later. I think the Va does this knowing that only a small percentage of the Vets will appeal the Effective date, so the Va gets out of paying for years. Another problem is the definition of a claim, and even the definition of an increase! If the Veteran is SC for hearing loss, for example, and asks for an increase, does this mean he is seeking an increased percentage for hearing loss, or is him asking also for tinnitus an "increase"? If a Vet is SC for hearing loss, would him mentioning tinnitus to his audiologist constitute an informal claim? Or would he already have to be SC for tinnitus to ask for an increase for tinnitus via an informal claim? Finally, there is an issue of Informal claims/inferred claims. Isnt it true that the Va has to infer claims, and if they dont, the Va can win an EED when the benefit is awarded if he "inferred" the claim? Does an inferred claim turn into an informal claim? The date of the medical exam is supposed to be the informal claim date, if the claim is filed within a year. However, the Veteran is only required to file ONE Formal claim. The Veteran does not have to file a formal claim for EACH of his informal claims, as one will suffice. I have more questions than answers, and I really dont think the courts know this either. For example, Rice vs Shinseki talks about the defination of a claim: This case requires the Court to clarify what constitutes a claim. VA defines "claim" as "a formal or informal communication in writing requesting a determination of entitlement or evidencing a belief in entitlement, to a benefit"–in Mr. Rice's case, the benefit sought is a total disability rating based on unemployability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(p) (2008). The term "claim," however, has been used to describe a wide variety of circumstances in our jurisprudence: We have termed "claims" some matters better thought of as issues within a claim. We have frequently addressed particular claimed disabilities within a single application for benefits by referring to each asserted disability as a separate "claim," while also referring to the application for benefits as a whole as the veteran's "claim." We have used the word "claim" in a way that focuses more on the procedural posture of a claim, e.g., an "original claim for benefits," Acciola v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 320, 326 (2008) ("n the context of original claims for benefits"); a "claim reopened after final adjudication," Goodwin v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 128, 138 (2008) ("[t]he effective date of an award based on . . . a claim reopened after final adjudication"); a "claim to reopen," Vigil v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 63, 65 (2008) ("[section] 3.1056© [of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations,] authorizes an effective date . . . up to the date of the claim to reopen."); or a "claim for increased compensation," Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 280, 286 (2008) ("[The appellant] contends that the disability ratings awarded . . . were not the result of new claims for increased compensation."). See also 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a) ("[T]he effective date of an award based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final adjudication, or a claim for increase, of compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, or pension, shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of application therefor."). Motions alleging clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in a prior decision have also often been referred to as "claims." See May v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 310, 318 (2005) ("Although no statute of limitations exists for the filing of a CUE claim, the conclusion that such a The Court notes that there is no such thing as a freestanding claim 3 for an earlier effective date. See Rudd v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 296, 299 (2006). 4 This is a statement of VA's usual treatment of applications that contain assertions of multiple disabilities or conditions. It is not intended to limit the Court's recent holding that "multiple medical diagnoses or diagnoses that differ from the claimed condition do not necessarily represent wholly separate claims," and that what constitutes a claim cannot be limited by a lay veteran's assertion of his condition in his application but must be construed "based on the reasonable expecations of the non-expert, self-represented claimant and the evidence developed in processing that claim." Clemons v. Shinseki, No. 07-0558, 2009 WL 899773, at *4 (Vet. App. Feb. 17, 2009) (per curiam). 6 claim cannot properly be filed while that claim is still appealable on direct review is supported by the definition of "finality" as to CUE claims that is provided in 38 C.F.R. § 20.1401(a)."). We have used the word "claim" when we really mean the specific benefit sought, for example, a "claim for dependency and indemnity compensation," Barela v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 155, 156 (2008) ("[The appellant] appeals . . . a Board . . . decision that denied her claim[] for . . . dependency and indemnity compensation."), or a "claim for pension," Ingram v. Nicholson, 21 Vet.App. 232, 247 (2007) ("[The appellant] was informed that his claim for pension was denied . . . ."). And, we have used "claim" to refer to elements of a claim, such as a "claim for service connection," Gallegos v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 329, 331 (2008) ("[T]he appellant filed a claim seeking service connection for both disorders."), or a "claim for an earlier effective date," Edwards v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 29, 30 (2008) ("Accordingly, the Board denied his claim for an earlier effective date.")3. As the judicial review of Agency benefit decisions matures, we now see that the broad definition of "claim," as used by VA and reflected in § 3.1(p), and the Court's fluid use of the term would benefit from an attempt to bring some precision to its use in the future. Therefore, we conclude that it is now time to set forth a general principle regarding "claims" for TDIU that embraces the intent of our jurisprudence. When a veteran submits an application for benefits to VA, it may, as VA's definition makes evident, encompass many claims; that is, each assertion of entitlement to benefits based on a specific disability that is the result of a distinct cause is a separate claim for disability compensation.4 See 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(p). Thus, in a single application for benefits, a veteran might submit a claim for compensation for a knee disability resulting from a basic training accident that occurred in 1970 as well as a claim for compensation based on PTSD that the veteran believes to have been incurred during service in Vietnam in 1972. Although both are included in a single application for benefits, VA is likely to treat them as separate claims, and such treatment is not inappropriate. Each of these We note that the holdings of our cases involving "claims for TDIU" 5 are not in conflict with what we find to be a correct statement of the law in this regard. For example, in Chotta, the statement that the "TDIU claim was granted" referred to a claim for an increased disability rating; in Dunlap, the Board was referring to an issue raised in conjunction with the appellate review of an initial disability rating. Chotta, 22 Vet.App. at 82; Dunlap, 21 Vet.App. at 115. 7 claims might just as easily have been submitted to VA on separate applications at different times following service. The mere fact that they are filed at the same time and in the same application does not change their character as separate "claims." Our cases have been less than precise by simply adopting the term "claim for TDIU," which is commonly used in VA adjudication parlance. See, e.g., Chotta v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 80, 82 ("The TDIU claim was granted . . . ."); Dunlap v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 112, 115 ("The Board noted that Mr. Dunlap had raised a claim for TDIU . . . ."). However, as its very title indicates, a finding that an individual is entitled to TDIU (Total Disability based on Individual Unemployability) merely means that the veteran has met certain qualifications entitling him to a "total disability" rating; in other words, a disability rating of 100%. Rather than including those qualifications in the rating schedule, VA has provided for this means of achieving a total disability rating in a separate regulation because it potentially applies to all disabilities, or, in some cases, combinations of those disabilities. Further, the rating schedule is based on the "average impairment in earning capacity caused by a disability," whereas entitlement to TDIU is based on an individual's particular circumstance. Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 111, 116 (2008).

Applied in 2002. Benefits awarded in 2009, with effective date in 2007. Currently appealing the effective date. Appeals still pending after more than 8 years, and may have to go back to the BVA again, which will take ANOTHER 4 years. I wont likely see all my benefits until 2014, 12 years after I first applied. However, 12 years is a bit optimistic because The VA has announced that they expect claims to take even longer in year 2011, so it will probably be more like 15 to 20 years. Even at that, I am a "short timer" to a friend of mine in a group who has been waiting since 1973 for his benefits..37 years, and this is not the VA's longest pending claim either. There really is some truth to the "delay till you die" motto at the VA, as my friend is unlikely to get his benefits before he dies..and his heirs will be out more than a million dollars.

Ok. You saw the regulation posted defining "expeditious". Now, I will "unspin" that defination: Expiditious: def. With a 1,000,000 claim backlog this means your claim will be placed QUICKLY on the hamster wheel, going nowhere as fast as possible, being passed from the VARO (bounced back and forth between the AOJ and any farmed out Regional offices) , to the DRO, to the AMC, and to the BVA, round and round she goes, where she stops nobody knows. In exceptional cases, the hamster wheel will add the CAVC to the "appeals team hamster wheel", and maybe the Federal courts also. Add in any possible "Writs of Mandamus" plus doses of shredded evidence, and "expeditious treatment" means however long the VA wants but usually in the 5-10 year range to get it finally settled. I have waited 8 years, and am still waiting.

Marine.. Using the regulation about the percentages for TDIU is one of the VA's "dirty tricks". While they are still supposed to submit your claim to the VACO for consideration under "B", they simply dont do that and the courts never enforce it. End result for Veterans: The VA denies your TDIU claim by "lowballing" you, then whines that you dont meet the percentage requirements for TDIU.

Great posts, and good information Sledge and Pete. I think you are right..the VA never reads "B", and even tho the "B" trumps the "A", they deny it because they never bother reading "B". Sometimes I think the VA does that on purpose...kind of like when you google something, most people go to the top 1 or 2 hits, and dont bother with the rest. The Va knows that, so they "bury" favorable legislation in the regulations and "highlight" reasons to deny.

I have advice. First, call 1-877 4AID Vet or 1877 424 3838. If you get the typical VA mumbo jumbo such as being put on hold forever, or not being able to reach a live person, then call: Georgia (404) 321-6111 4673 Atlanta HCHV Program VAMC/122 1670 Clairmont Rd. Decatur GA 30033 Phone Number Ext. 508 (706) 733-0188 6392 Augusta VAMC/122U 1 Freedom Way Augusta GA 30904628 Phone Number Ext. 509 (706) 733-0188 7426 Augusta VAMC/122U 1 Freedom Way Augusta GA 30904628 Phone Number Ext. 509 Page 15

John is right. The VA doesnt "infer" claims, instead they "ignore" them. I think you just need to be lucky and get a judge like Davis, in Comer, below. The VA is supposed to give the Veteran the "benefit of the doubt" and "liberally interpret" the Veterans filings. The problem boils down to "specifying the benefit sought", and, as the judge in Comer stated, "The government’s interest in veterans cases is not that it shall win, but rather that justice shall be done, that all veterans so entitled receive the benefits due to them.” Barrett v. Nicholson, 466 F.3d 1038, 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Jaquay, 304 F.3d at 1280 (“Congress has created a paternalistic veterans’ benefits system to care for those who served their country in uniform.”). The VA disability compensation system is not meant to be a trap for the unwary, or a stratagem to deny compensation to a veteran who has a valid claim, but who may be unaware of the various forms of compensation available to him. To the contrary, the VA “has the affirmative duty to assist claimants by informing veterans of the benefits available to them and assisting them in developing claims they may have.” I think that is precisely what the VA does..it "sets a trap for the unwary Veteran". If the Veteran sought a claim for "mental illness" and his diagnosis was "depression", they would say he didnt "specify the benefit sought".