broncovet

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".

I think you have 2 possibilities here: 1. I think I read somewhere where the VA is "supposed" to process either a NSC pension or IU in 90 days if there is a documented hardship, such as being homeless. 2. You can request an "advance on the docket" at the BVA if your claim is at the BVA and you have a hardship. The ridicilous part of this is that who would NOT be in a hardship position if they lost their job and was waiting on Va benefits. I think MOST Veterans applying for benefits are in a hardship situation, or they wouldnt be applying. This is why the VA's delays are so frustrating. In either case, I would suggest sending it on a 21-4138 form, along with documentation such as an eviction notice, and mail it certified return receipt requested.

Your friend needs to file a NOD, electing a DRO Review. He also needs to get someone nearby, hopefully, knowledgeable..and a VSO may be of help to him especially since he is computer illiterate and wont be able to ask questions on hadit. The VA is required to go through some very specific procedures to reduce your benefits, one of which is giving him 60 days notice to protest it. If they did not do that, the BVA or CAVC should reverse this reduction. The VA treats conditions independently..cervical spine, gerd, etc, so even tho his combined percentage went up, his lawyer may argue that this was an improper reduction because your benefits would have been increased anyway, and the benefits that went "poof!" were a reduction. I think the VA will argue that his benefits were increased, so its not a reduction, but he should consult with a lawyer CERTIFIED to practice at THE CAVC (a Veterans lawyer) JMHO. Your friend may be able to get a lawyer "pro bono" (for free), but, even if he has to pay the lawyer, it will probably only be 20% of the future "retro" and 80% of something is more than 100% of nothing.

I would add that not only can a Doctors visit establish an informal claim for benefit increase (it would not make sense for this to apply to the initial claim because just going to the doctor does not mean that you are seeking benefits for that condition), but the VA has to give a sympathetic reading of the Veterans filings, as stated in Comer below: (Parts have been omitted for brevity) United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2008-7013 LEROY COMER, Claimant-Appellant, v. JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2008-7013 LEROY COMER, Claimant-Appellant, v. JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in 05-1462, Judge Robert N. Davis. ______________________ DECIDED: January 16, 2009 _______________________ Before MAYER, LOURIE, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges. MAYER, Circuit Judge. Leroy Comer appeals the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims which held that he had not properly raised the issue of whether he was entitled to an earlier effective date for total disability based on individual unemployability (“TDIU”) benefits. See Comer v. Nicholoson, No. 05-1462, 2007 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 1083 (Vet. App. July 6, 2007) (“2007 Veterans Court Decision”). Because we conclude that the court misinterpreted Roberson v. Principi, 251 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001), when it held that the duty to sympathetically and fully construe a pro se veteran’s filings did not apply to an appeal submitted to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals following a rating determination, we reverse and remand. Comer first argues that the Veterans Court misconstrued Roberson, 251 F.3d at 1380-84, when it held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the issue of whether he was entitled to an earlier effective date for TDIU benefits because he had not explicitly raised that issue before the board. In his view, Roberson requires the board to consider whether a TDIU award is warranted whenever a pro se claimant seeks a higher disability rating and submits cogent evidence of unemployability, regardless of whether he states specifically that he is seeking TDIU benefits. We agree. In Roberson, a veteran, who had had significant employment difficulties, filed a pro se claim seeking disability benefits, but did not specify that he was seeking a TDIU award. 251 F.3d at 1380. The RO awarded him a 70 percent disability rating for PTSD, but did not consider whether he also might be entitled to a TDIU award, which would entitle him to a 100 percent disability rating. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (“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.”). Roberson later sought to reopen his claim, asserting that the RO decision contained clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”) because the RO had failed to consider his entitlement to TDIU benefits. The Veterans Court rejected this argument, concluding that he had no right to TDIU benefits because he had not specifically requested them in his initial claim. 2008-7013 5 On appeal, this court reversed. We concluded that although Roberson had not specifically requested TDIU benefits, the VA was required to consider his entitlement to such benefits because the record contained clear evidence of his unemployability. Roberson, 251 F.3d at 1384. We explained that “regardless of whether [a] claim is specifically labeled as a claim for TDIU,” the VA is obligated to “determine all potential claims raised by the evidence.” Id. Accordingly, the VA must consider whether a TDIU award is warranted whenever “a veteran submits evidence of a medical disability and makes a claim for the highest rating possible, and additionally submits evidence of unemployability.” Id. Thus, as in Roberson, the VA should have considered Comer’s entitlement to TDIU benefits. Although he did not explicitly assert the right to a TDIU award for the period from February 26, 1999, to May 5, 2004, his pro se appeal, which sought an earlier effective date and a higher disability rating for PTSD benefits was sufficient, when coupled with the evidence showing his unemployability, to raise the issue of his entitlement to an earlier effective date for his TDIU award. Simply put, under Roberson, a claim to TDIU 1 The Veterans Court has long held that an informal claim for an increased rating will be construed as a claim for the highest rating possible. See, e.g., Norris v. West, 12 Vet. App. 413, 419-20 (1999). Thus, as the board correctly acknowledged, Comer’s appeal of the RO’s rating determination was required to be construed “as an appeal for the maximum benefit allowable by law or regulation.” 2005 Board Decision, slip op. at 2. 2008-7013 6 benefits is not a free-standing claim that must be pled with specificity; it is implicitly raised whenever a pro se veteran, who presents cogent evidence of unemployability, seeks to obtain a higher disability rating. See Szemraj v. Principi, 357 F.3d 1370, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The VA is required, “regardless of the specific labels . . . claims are given in the veteran’s pleadings,” to read pro se submissions sympathetically and “to determine all potential claims raised by the evidence.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). The government, however, attempts to distinguish Comer’s situation from that presented in Roberson. In its view, Roberson does not apply: (a) to appeal submissions to the board following an initial rating determination, or (;) to situations in which a veteran is assisted by a representative from a veterans’ service organization. A. The government concedes that under Roberson the RO has the duty to consider whether a claimant is entitled to a TDIU award, even when entitlement to TDIU benefits is not explicitly raised. It contends, however, that Roberson is inapplicable here because Comer “does not seek a sympathetic reading of a claim or pleading but, instead, seeks the board’s review of an issue that was not raised on appeal.” The government reads Roberson too narrowly. This is not the first time that it has advanced an overly restrictive interpretation of Roberson, and this will not be the first time its efforts will be rejected. See Andrews v. Nicholson, 421 F.3d 1278, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Roberson is not limited to its particular facts and instead . . . requires, with respect to all pro se pleadings, that the VA give a sympathetic reading to the veteran’s filings.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Szemraj, 357 F.3d at 1373 (“But 2008-7013 7 our decision in Roberson is not limited to its particular facts as the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims appears to have suggested here.”); Moody v. Principi, 360 F.3d 1306, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The VA is required to give a sympathetic reading to a veteran’s filings even where the facts of a particular case do not “coincide” with the facts presented in Roberson). Although Roberson involved an initial claim submitted to an RO, there is no reason that the rule it articulated should not apply with equal force to a notice of disagreement submitted after an RO’s decision. Unlike at the Veterans Court, where proceedings are more adversarial in nature, see Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc), in proceedings before the board, “the relationship between the veteran and the government is non-adversarial and pro-claimant,” Jaquay v. Principi, 304 F.3d 1276, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Because of the paternalistic nature of the proceedings, the board, like the RO, is required “to fully and sympathetically develop the veteran’s claim to its optimum before deciding it on the merits.” McGee v. Peake, 511 F.3d 1352, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Comer appealed a 2004 RO decision that granted him an increased PTSD disability rating of 70 percent and a TDIU award, both of which were effective May 5, 2004. His appeal asserted that he was entitled to “an increased evaluation for PTSD and an earlier effective date” for his PTSD disability benefits. Although Comer did not state specifically that he was entitled to an earlier effective date for his TDIU award, his claim for an increased rating and an earlier effective date for his PTSD benefits, coupled with the persuasive and pervasive evidence in the record demonstrating his unemployability, was sufficient to raise the issue of his entitlement to an earlier effective 2008-7013 8 date for his TDIU award as well. While the Veterans Court correctly noted that a veteran is obligated to raise an issue in a notice of disagreement if he wishes to preserve his right to assert that issue on appeal, see 2007 Veterans Court Decision, slip op. at 3-4, the determination of whether an issue has been properly raised must be made with due regard for the VA’s duty to read a veteran’s submissions sympathetically. In other words, the VA’s duty to read an appeal submission sympathetically to ascertain all potential claims it contains is antecedent to its duty to ensure that an issue has been properly raised on appeal. Cf. Andrews, 421 F.3d at 1283 (“[T]he VA’s duty to sympathetically read a veteran’s pro se CUE motion to discern all potential claims is antecedent to a determination of whether a CUE claim has been pled with specificity.”). Indeed, 38 C.F.R. § 20.202 specifically provides that the board is required to construe an appellant’s arguments “in a liberal manner for purposes of determining whether they raise issues on appeal.” See Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 545, 552 (2008) (“[T]he Board is required to consider all issues raised either by the claimant or by the evidence of record. Indeed, by regulation, the Board is required to construe an appellant’s arguments in a liberal manner . . . .” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). A liberal and sympathetic reading of appeal submissions is necessary because a pro se veteran may lack a complete understanding of the subtle differences in various forms of VA disability benefits and of the sometimes arcane terminology used to describe those benefits. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 15 (1980) (Pleadings drafted by pro se litigants should be held to a lesser standard than those drafted by lawyers since “[a]n unrepresented litigant should not be punished for his failure to 2008-7013 9 recognize subtle factual or legal deficiencies in his claims.”); Forshey, 284 F.3d at 1357 (“n situations where a party appeared pro se before the lower court, a court of appeals may appropriately be less stringent in requiring that the issue have been raised explicitly below.”). “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.” Jaquay, 304 F.3d at 1280. The need for such assistance is particularly acute where, as here, a veteran is afflicted with a significant psychological disability at the time he files his appeal. See 2005 Board Decision, slip op. at 3 (noting that Comer’s “symptoms have included nightmares and flashbacks, sleep impairment, depression, flat affect and self isolation”). B. We also reject the government’s contention that the board had no duty to construe Comer’s appeal sympathetically because he had assistance from an aide from a veterans’ service organization. Although we have held that the duty to construe a veteran’s filings sympathetically does not necessarily apply when a veteran is 2008-7013 10 represented by an attorney, Andrews, 421 F.3d at 1283, the assistance provided by the DAV aide is not the equivalent of legal representation. Comer filed his initial claim pro se, appealed the decision denying him benefits pro se, and filed his initial notices of disagreement pro se. It was not until after he had filed his appeal that a DAV aide, in December 2003, filed a statement on his behalf. This sort of limited assistance is insufficient to disqualify Comer as a pro se claimant. Indeed, even if Comer had received more significant assistance from the DAV, representation by an organizational aide is not equivalent to representation by a licensed attorney. Although aides from veterans’ service organizations provide invaluable assistance to claimants seeking to find their way through the labyrinthine corridors of the veterans’ adjudicatory system, they are “not generally trained or licensed in the practice of law.” Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 451 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Thus, in Jacquay, 304 F.3d at 1282-88, we excused the fact that a veteran had sent his appeal to the wrong address, even though he had had some assistance from a non-attorney representative from a veterans’ service organization. The DAV was created by congressional charter “to advance the interests . . . of all wounded, injured, and disabled American veterans” and “to cooperate with the We next turn to Comer’s second argument on appeal, that the VA had an obligation to inform him that he was required to file a CUE motion if he wanted to obtain benefits retroactive to the date of his initial claim. He filed a claim for disability benefits in December 1988, and although the RO rated him as 30 percent disabled due to PTSD, it denied him benefits on the ground that his PTSD was not connected to his Vietnam service. In 2001, however, Comer persuaded the board that new evidence justified the reopening of his claim. He was then awarded service-connected benefits for PTSD, but those benefits were only effective as of February 26, 1999, the date of his motion to reopen his claim. Comer contends that the VA was obligated, under 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a), to inform him that he could only obtain benefits retroactive to December 29, 1988, the date of his initial claim, by filing a motion asserting that the RO’s initial determination that his PTSD was not service-connected contained CUE.2 In support, he says that section 5103(a) requires the VA to provide a veteran with notice of “any information . . . that is necessary to substantiate [his] claim,” 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a), Without a doubt, the process for reopening a previously disallowed claim and obtaining retroactive benefits can be exceedingly difficult, particularly for a veteran who is proceeding pro se. Where, as here, a veteran mounts a successful campaign to reopen a previously disallowed claim based on new and material evidence, he is likely to assume that he will have an opportunity to obtain the benefits to which he would have been entitled had he prevailed on his original claim. Surprisingly, however, this is not the case. The earliest effective date for an award based on a veteran’s request to reopen a final decision based on new and material evidence is generally the date that the application to reopen was filed. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a). It is only by filing a CUE claim that a veteran can obtain benefits retroactive to the date of the original RO decision. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109A(:D, 7111(B); Leonard v. Nicholson, 405 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[A]bsent a showing of CUE, [a veteran] cannot receive disability payments for a time frame earlier than the application date of his claim to reopen, even with new evidence supporting an earlier disability date.”). As discussed above, the VA has an “affirmative duty to assist claimants by informing [them] of the benefits available to them and assisting them in developing 3 Section 5103(a) provides: “Upon receipt of a complete or substantially complete application, the Secretary shall notify the claimant and the claimant’s representative, if any, of any information, and any medical or lay evidence, not previously provided to the Secretary that is necessary to substantiate the claim. As part of that notice, the Secretary shall indicate which portion of that information and evidence, if any, is to be provided by the claimant and which portion, if any, the Secretary . . . will attempt to obtain on behalf of the claimant.” 2008-7013 13 claims they may have.” See Jaquay, 304 F.3d at 1280. It is only reasonable to expect, therefore, that if the VA is confronted with a claimant who seeks retroactive benefits, it will inform him that he needs to file a CUE motion in order to obtain those benefits. It is troubling that the VA apparently never informed Comer that he needed to file a CUE motion, but then denied his request for retroactive benefits on the ground that he had “not specifically alleged clear and unmistakable error” in the initial RO decision. See 2005 Board Decision, slip op. at 23. We decline, however, to resolve the issue of whether the VA had a duty, under section 5103(a), to notify Comer that he could only obtain retroactive benefits by filing a CUE motion because we conclude that even if the VA had such a duty, failure to fulfill it does not rise to reversible error.4 In Sanders, this court held that a violation of the VA’s section 5103(a) notice obligations is presumptively prejudicial, but we also held that the VA can rebut the presumption. 487 F.3d at 891. 4 Another reason we decline to resolve the question of whether the VA had a duty to notify Comer that he could only obtain retroactive benefits by filing a CUE motion is that this issue was not addressed by either the Veterans Court or the board. “t is the general rule . . . that a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below.” Here, the government correctly observes that there is no time limit for filing a CUE claim. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a). Accordingly, Comer has the right to file a CUE motion now, and if successful, he could obtain disability benefits retroactive to his initial claim. Thus, assuming arguendo that the VA failed to fulfill its section 5103(a) notice obligations, such failure does not constitute reversible error because Comer has not forfeited the right to bring a CUE claim. Cf. Newhouse v. Nicholson, 497 F.3d 1298, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (sustaining a Veterans Court determination that violation of notice obligations was harmless error where the VA had made an unreviewable factual determination that a claimant “had actual knowledge that he was required to submit medical evidence regarding his hearing loss to substantiate his claim”). Notwithstanding our conclusion that VA’s failure does not constitute grounds for reversal, we are not unmindful of the very real difficulties Comer has faced in his lengthy struggle to obtain disability benefits. Since 1988, Comer has persistently and articulately asserted that he is entitled to PTSD disability compensation. Yet—despite the fact that the VA does not dispute that Comer has suffered from PTSD since at least 1988 and that it acknowledged, in 2003, that his PTSD is service connected—it has yet to provide him disability benefits for the period from 1988 to 1999. As a final matter, the issue of whether the VA was required to inform Comer that he needed to file a CUE claim is moot if he has, in fact, already filed one. CUE claims “must be pled with specificity,” Johnston v. Nicholson, 421 F.3d 1285, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2005), and must assert, based upon the evidence of record at the time of the original decision, an error that is “outcome determinative.” Cook v. Principi, 318 F.3d 1334, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc). Here, although this court has not been provided with a Costs to appellant. REVERSED AND REMANDED

John The regulation you mentioned refers to an increase, as follows: 3.157 Report of examination or hospitalization as claim for increase or to reopen. (a) General. Effective date of pension or compensation benefits, if otherwise in order, will be the date of receipt of a claim or the date when entitlement arose, whichever is the later. A report of examination or hospitalization which meets the requirements of this section will be accepted as an informal claim for benefits under an existing law or for benefits under a liberalizing law or Department of Veterans Affairs issue, if the report relates to a disability which may establish entitlement. Acceptance of a report of examination or treatment as a claim for increase or to reopen is subject to the requirements of §3.114 with respect to action on Department of Veterans Affairs initiative or at the request of the claimant and the payment of retroactive benefits from the date of the report or for a period of 1 year prior to the date of receipt of the report. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5110(a)) (;) Claim. Once a formal claim for pension or compensation has been allowed or a formal claim for compensation disallowed for the reason that the service-connected disability is not compensable in degree, receipt of one of the following will be accepted as an informal claim for increased benefits or an informal claim to reopen. In addition, receipt of one of the following will be accepted as an informal claim in the case of a retired member of a uniformed service whose formal claim for pension or compensation has been disallowed because of receipt of retirement pay. The evidence listed will also be accepted as an informal claim for pension previously denied for the reason the disability was not permanently and totally disabling. (1) Report of examination or hospitalization by Department of Veterans Affairs or uniformed services. The date of outpatient or hospital examination or date of admission to a VA or uniformed services hospital will be accepted as the date of receipt of a claim. The date of a uniformed service examination which is the basis for granting severance pay to a former member of the Armed Forces on the temporary disability retired list will be accepted as the date of receipt of claim. The date of admission to a non-VA hospital where a veteran was maintained at VA expense will be accepted as the date of receipt of a claim, if VA maintenance was previously authorized; but if VA maintenance was authorized subsequent to admission, the date VA received notice of admission will be accepted. The provisions of this paragraph apply only when such reports relate to examination or treatment of a disability for which service-connection has previously been established or when a claim specifying the benefit sought is received within one year from the date of such examination, treatment or hospital admission. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501) (2) Evidence from a private physician or layman. The date of receipt of such evidence will be accepted when the evidence furnished by or in behalf of the claimant is within the competence of the physician or lay person and shows the reasonable probability of entitlement to benefits. (3) State and other institutions. When submitted by or on behalf of the veteran and entitlement is shown, date of receipt by the Department of Veterans Affairs of examination reports, clinical records, and transcripts of records will be accepted as the date of receipt of a claim if received from State, county, municipal, recognized private institutions, or other Government hospitals (except those described in paragraph (:D(1) of this section). These records must be authenticated by an appropriate official of the institution. Benefits will be granted if the records are adequate for rating purposes; otherwise findings will be verified by official examination. Reports received from private institutions not listed by the American Hospital Association must be certified by the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Veterans Affairs or physician designee.

Pete Im not an SMC expert either, in fact I am not sure anyone is. Try here: http://www.veteranaid.org/

You need to apply for the "aid and attendance" benefit. They dont call it a "stipend". For more informtion, try here: http://www.veteranaid.org/

It has been my experience that things I think are devastating, such as a hearing loss rated "moderately severe", the VA rates very, very low or not at all. For example, I know a Vet who can not even watch TV without close captioning, but the VA rates his hearing loss at 0%. If he can't understand the TV, how can he understand simple instructions from his boss? (He cant). However, at other times, I think the VA rates stuff at more than what its worth. An example of this is OSA with CPAP, rated at 50%. While CPAP machines are akward, and a pain in the neck, I think a moderately severe hearing loss "effects a Veterans earning capacity" more than a CPAP would. Many people could go for years without their boss even knowing they were on a CPAP, but if they were HOH, the boss would find out very soon, probably at the interview. In fact, if they were HOH they probably would not get the job at all, as HOH have an unemployment rate about 50%. I think most people would agree that you should go ahead and file even if you think you could only get 10% disability at best, for several reasons. First, you have established SC and this in itself gets you some significant benefits. Next, you can ask for an increase if it becomes worse. Finally, if there are side effects, such as from meds you are on, you may be able to get rated for a secondary condition. It is possible that the "secondary" condition be more benefits than the original.

This seems to be the best explanation of "protected" and "unprotected" ratings that I have heard. http://www.attiglawfirm.com/blog/va-benefi...y-compensation/

VAF Well, I am no expert on the matter, but my VA benefits come tax free, and I am pretty sure retirement benefits are taxable...I know Social Security is taxable. They have a scale, depending upon how much other income you have that goes something like if you earn more than 44,000 in a year, then 85% of your Social Security is taxable. However, if you earn less than $44,000 per year, only 50% of your social security is taxable. (this assumes you are married filing jointly) More here: http://www.ssa.gov/planners/taxes.htm So, my advice would be to go medical unless the "regular" retirement was more because $30,000 per year non taxable is more than $30,000 per year minus taxes. JMHO.

Remember, stuff is so crazy at the VA that "crazy" is the new normal for the Va. While you are appealing you might even try this: Apply for something like DEA, or something that they only give to P and T's like fishing licenses or somthing like that, depending on your state. Reason: You could already be P and T in the computer! More than once I have heard about Vets who were P and T, but the decision did not specify that. Some decisions say, "no exams are scheduled" and our tax assessor, when we apply for a tax exemption, for example, is supposed to be able to interpret that to mean we are P and T!

DAV.. Yes, hang tough. You are right about the VARO's awarding the minimum possible..at the latest possible effective date. They interpret the "benefit of the doubt" to mean they "doubt that the Veteran should get any benefits". "Favor the Veteran" to them means "forget the Veteran"....just leave his claim in the million claim waiting pile and make him wait. I think some people think the "million claim backlog" is an exaggeration...sort of like "I told you a million times not to do that". However, if the VA's past manipulation of the numbers is any indication, the backlog is probably more like 5 million Veterans waiting. Remember, the Va deceives the public into thinking Vets get their benefits in about 180 days, which is outright false because fewer than 50% of claims are granted on the first decision, meaning that most Vets have to appeal, which, in reality, means that most are required to get on the hamster wheel for 4 to 8 years before they get their benefits. Why should the VA have to have "special regulations" when Vets get 10 year Retros over $250,000? That is because for a Veteran to wait 10 years on his benefits is not all that "special"...its downright criminal. If those VA execs had to wait 10 days on their check, heads would roll. But Veterans are supposed to wait 10 years, and not go nuttier. Ok..sorry about my rant.

I think what he means is that he is looking for a list of Doctors who will render an IMO. I dont have a list, but many doctors will accept payment for their medical opinion. One Doc that tends to "favor the Veteran" is Dr. Bash. Personally, I think an IME (Independent Medical Exam) is superior to an IMO, because the statement of a Doc who examined you just seems more credible to me than a doc who simply examined other doctors records. Its kind of like the IME examiner is an "eye witness", where an IMO doc just reports what other docs observed. I think Dr. Bash will also do an IME, but this would mean you would have to bear the cost of traveling to Dr. Bash's location so that he could examine you. Altho many Vets have won claims based on an IMO, I think that it is better to not leave it up to chance and get the exam, unless you simply cant afford it. JMHO.

I agree with Bergie. If you have a claim, by all means dont delay filing it. Sure, it may delay your benefits if you have multiple issues, but its not like the VA wont delay it anyway. The VA LOVES delays..they make them money. Longer delays= more money for the Va. The VA hopes they can delay until you die.

It is very difficult, IMHO, to get CPAP service connected. Back when I was in the military, in the 70's, docs did not know what OSA was, much less diagnose or treat it, so if you did have it back then, you almost certainly never got treatment for it. If you didnt get treatment for it, then you didnt have it according to the VA. I guess it is the Veterans fault that very few, if any military docs even knew what OSA was back then. The VA's "favor the Veteran" rule means that unless you have documentry proof signed by at least 4.8 MD's, notarized by 2.4 people who are friends of notable politicians, your condition did not happen in the service.

Hang in there with the CPAP. Untreated OSA can cause very serious problems, even leading to death. Just a couple examples: 1. If you dont sleep well at night, often you are tired or even fall asleep during the day, doing things like driving. 2. Untreated OSA can lead to an enlargement of the right side of the heart. The right side gets bigger to compensate for the lack of oxygen because you stop breathing many times/night. An unbalanced heart, with the right side too large can lead to heart arrythmia's and ultimately cardiac arrest. You may have to experiment with which mask is best for you. I like the "nasal pillows" that goes in the nose and not the mouth, but that is not for everyone. The nasal pillows is a very small mask, and does not obstruct your view as much as some of the larger masks. To humidify or not to humidify is personal choice..I started out humidifying and later dropped it. If you are very dry, then try humidifying it. Pete is right, keep the thing clean and wash out the inside of the mask and hose with warm soapy water, AND CLEAN THE FILTER, once a week minimum. I take my CPAP everywhere..even camping. If you are SC for OSA on a CPAP or BIPAP, the rating is 50%, and it doesnt matter whether your CPAP is set at 4 or 18. The CPAP setting is the setting it takes to make your airway unobstructed when you relax. Your sleep doc figured that out. The severity of OSA is much more about the number of times per hour you stop breating rather than the CPAP setting.

If I understand you correctly, the "new " decision does not state your eligibility for DEA, so you are assuming it is NOT P and T, correct? Does the "new decision" state that you are NOT P and T? Remember the Va is inconsistent at writing "P and T" or NOT P and T on its decisions, often frustrating Veterans who know that many of your benefits depend on whether or not you are p AND t. Imho, you need to appeal this. I do not recommend anyone try to meet the higher standard of CUE, UNLESS there is no option, such as a simple timely filed appeal. That is if you did not file a NOD in a year, then you have no choice but to file a cue and try to meet this more stringent level of proof. I think you should file a traditional NOD, and ask for a DRO review even tho he says they wont budge on it. Remember, this is a judgement call, and whover does your DRO review will likely be someone I think in your appeal, you really should use your copy as evidence. That is, at least one person in the Va thinks you should get P and T, then someone else changed it. That is, the "benefit of the doubt" should go in your favor when one person thinks you should get P and T and someone else does not..since that is an "interpretative doubt" that should be resolved in favor of the Veteran. JMHO.

Rosy Getting an answer on this will be tough, for 2 reasons. First, if anyone has done what you are referring to, they probably are keeping their mouth shut. For the rest of us who have not done it, we can only venture a guess. Here is my 2 cents worth: I think there is very little chance you will loose your benefits exclusively due to income from gambling. However, you could loose your benies with this issue in combination with other issues. One example would be if the VA called you for a re exam, and you were in Vegas playing poker and did not know it, then you could miss your appointment and your rating would likely be reduced. Another possible example would be if you discontinued your mental health exams because you felt better from gambling. I think if you did not continue with your treatment you could be at risk for a rating reduction. If you are older than 55, especially with your P and T status, the Va is going to have a hard time reducing your benefits, especially if you follow the procedures. You know..if they send you a 60 day notice of proposed rating reduction, then you had better give them some good reasons why your rating should not be reduced, or they will reduce it. I have read quite a bit of discussion on ratings/rating reductions and working. Remember that schedular ratings totaling 100% still enable to you obtain or keep employment. Max Cleland, Tammy Duckworth, and John Mc Cain are high profile disabled Vets collecting their benefits and working. Its a totally different story, however, if you are collecting TDIU, because you have to certify every year that you are not working to collect TDIU. I also think there is some discrimination going on against Veterans with a mental illness. You see, those 3 above named people all have disabilities that are pretty obvious and visible. Mental illnesses are not nearly as visible..the Va does not require you to wear a Tshirt saying "I have a mental illness rated as 100% by the VA". Of course, if you had 2 legs blown off like Tammy Duckworth, it is pretty obvious. You see, if Tammy Duckworth overcomes her disability and is able to work from her wheel chair, she is a hero. However, if a Veteran with a mental illness was able to overcome his disability and still work full time, then he would be thought to be a "malingerer" (faker). I do not agree, nor do I subscribe to this discrimination to the mentally ill. I cant see how it is somehow good to overcome the disability of missing legs, but somehow evil to overcome ones mental problems and become productive. A big part of this is that people beleive what they can see and doubt what they cant....even tho things we cant see can be very, very real. We can not see the nucleas of an atom, but that does not mean a nuclear weapon will not harm us. This is just my 2 cents worth.

Hang in there. It is always the darkest just before dawn. The BVA is going to be under pressure to fix this, and that means they will have to fix it in your favor.

MarkC.. Its a sad situation when a 4.5 year delay does not even get a "rise". Many of us have waited longer than that for our benefits, my wait was 7 years, and I found it to be about typical..with some taking longer, and some taking less time. I mention this because some people will make you "feel better" by telling you that you should get your compensation check any day. Then, you are really angry when you find out they lied to you. I sent an IRIS in 2006 asking the status of my claim and they indicated that it was farmed out to Roanoke RO, and that I can expect an answer in 6 -8 weeks. I waited more than 2 years for an answer. I dont think the IRIS people make those promises anymore, but, who knows? Have you received your initial RO decision? Did you get a VCAA letter acknowledging receipt of your claim? Did you appeal it? If so, what type of appeal? DRO review, DRO hearing?..To offer advice, we need more information, and pardon me, if you posted it elsewhere and I did not see it.

I think the VA has 3 lists: 1. The "crap" list. Most of us are on that one. Vets get their claims delayed and denied, usually between 4-8 years. This is the best list the VA has, and you can eventually win your benefits if you are patient enough to wait it out. 2. The Super crap list. These are Veterans who have waited more than 10 years for their benefits, and will likely die before they see a dime. Many of these Vets on the super crap list have their claims "stuck" at the AMC, or have gone ring around the rosie between the BVA and the RO, sometimes for decades. 3. The lowest of the low, where Keith Roberts and the Doctor Woods is at. If you are on this list, not only are your claims delayed/denied permanently, but the Va decides to use all means to retaliate and do its best to put you in jail. Fortunately, most of us are not on this list, but we know that it can happen, and the Va takes a sacrificial Veteran to jail regularly so that they can maintain the status quo, without any fear that the VA employees/executives will be held accountable for their actions.

Hadit did have a person who claimed to have gotten their claim approved the first time, but that person is no longer at hadit, so we are unable to confirm that this actually happened. This person, however, claimed they had all their records in order. Right now, it is pretty much just theoretically possible to get your claim approved correctly the first time, but I really have never heard of it actually happening for real.

It isnt all that fair, or even downright discrimination against mental illness, but that is the way it is. If you are missing arms or legs, such as Tammy Duckworth or Max Cleland, and you overcome your disabilities and can work, you are a hero. However, if you are PTSD, or some other mental illness an overcome your disabilities and go to work you are considered a fraud. PTSD and other mental illness, and sometimes things like hearing loss are often "invisible". It does not mean you dont have them, it means that you can often compensate, at least for a short period of time. That is, you may have PTSD and someone could talk to you for 10 minutes and never know it. It is also even true with even moderate-severe hearing loss! In a very quiet situation (with little/no background noise), where I am very close to the speaker, and he has a very strong voice, and speaks slowly and clearly, facing me, (that is, under almost ideal listening conditions), I can often carry on a reasonable converstation and many people will not even know I have a moderate severe hearing loss. Unfortunately, the real world is not ideal. People have soft voices, and there is often much background noise. The are far away from the speaker, and turn their head away from you. So hearing loss is sometimes "invisible", too. Depression, and things like MST are often invisible too. People often think anything they cant see must not be real. Well, you cant see a "bit" either, but your computer has to have em, or it wont work.

Blackbird I tend to agree with Larry. Go ahead and try, but I dont see you getting reimbursement for copays on private care. It is one of those VA "Gothcha's". You see, the spouse of a 100% disabled Vet gets to choose whether she wants to go to the VA hospital or private hospital thru Champva. Vets, however, dont get a choice. It really puzzles me that our wives have more options, and thus better care than we do. We have an option...go to the VA, or pay up on our own (less applicable insurance..if we have private insurance.) I am a disabled Vet and the Va pays zero towards my private medical care, except in some very, very limited circumstances such as there not being a VA hospital within a hundred miles and I have a bona fide medical emergency such as a heart attack or car accident.

You have been lowballed. Its just another VA dirty trick. Your doc has clearly given you irefutable evidence for TDIU. If its any consolation that is not the worst thing that can happen, as some get denials or, even worse, no decision at all which is very difficult to appeal! At least you can, and should appeal. JMHO, but I am not all that certain an IMO/IME will help you. You already have the evidence with a GAF of 45 and your doc declaring you unemployable. Appeal, persist, appeal again.