broncovet

Jerr.. I think I will defend this Vet here. This Vet probably applied for IU while he was not working, and it probably took the VA many, many months or years for the VA to "process" this application. Often times, the Vet does not even really know for sure the status of his application..as I did not for years on end. You can not rely on 800 number responses, and I have not always even been able to count on VA's IRIS responses. Remember the VA is allowed to "deemed deny" an application. That is, the VA can issue a decision on, say, hearing loss, without addressing IU, which, according to some recent decisions, means his IU was denied. I had my IU application simply dropped by the VA without a decision or an apparent explanation. But lets say that the Veteran was sure the VA was "processing" his IU claim...not knowing whether or not it would ever be approved. The Vet gets an opportunity to try out this job. I think it is very reasonable for the Veteran to not withdraw his IU claim..or even mention to the VA that MAYBE this job will work out and, if so, he would not be eligible for IU. I think it is very reasonable for the Veteran to simply wait to make sure he is not eligible for IU because his job worked out before he reports it to the VA. I do not think the Veteran is required to report to the VA, "Well, I am trying to work here and MAYBE I am not eligible for IU, before he is even getting IU". Of course, if he was receiving IU, and he was working with "substantial gainful employment" he must report this to the VA. I have enough trouble reporting actually what happens to the VA, without concerning myself with what MIGHT happen in the future. If the Veteran applied for IU while he was working, that is probably something else altogether. The Veteran signs and dates the application..that is, that he is representing that he was not working on ....... date to ....... date. The Veteran should never lie or deceive the Va about that. That is fraud. And the Veteran does not have a crystal ball and cant predict, with certainty, that he will be working on ......... date. So, he applies for benefits on what has happened, not on what he thinks might happen. When the Veteran started working, he likely did not know if it would work out or if it just would be "marginal" employment..and he also did not know if he would ever be approved for IU. Veterans are entiltled to all benefits the law allows. The law makes this distinction between "marginal" and "substantial gainful employment".

I agree with what the others have said, that you should document this in case you should ever have an 1151 claim. I am curious as to how an Xray tech would injure you..did the tech move you in such a way to take an xray that it caused pain or damage to a joint he was trying to xray? It sounds like you had 2 incidents..an xray tech injury and "large amounts of IV and oral steroids". Can you find out if this large amount was ordered by the doctor, or is this perhaps a nursing error? You can go to the steriod company's website and probably find out what the "normal" dose for this steroid is, and find out if the website says this drug dosage should not combine oral and IV dosages. An overdose of steroids or other drugs, of course, can have serious long term or short term problems. If you were administered the company recommended dosage, then it may just be that your system responded negatively to the drug. I think I would look into these things..just in case the symptoms re appear for this possible overdose of steriods.

Wings is right. Just go to a hospital. Are the PA's, nursing assistants, janitors, etc, writing orders for the doctors to obey? I think it is the other way around..a doctors opinion easily over rides a conflicting PA's opinion.

According to Bergman and Moore, a law firm representing Veterans against the VA, this case is important for Veterans as it preserves VA benefits and the VA's denial of "due process". Article follows, it is from B&M website Aug. 2009: On August 12, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the court that hears appeals from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, issued a decision that creates a new way to challenge an adverse VA decision. In Cushman v. Shinseki, No. 2008-7129 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2009), the court held that applicants for veterans disability benefits have a constitutionally protected property interest in their entitlement to those benefits, of which they cannot be deprived without due process of law. Although it is well-settled that recipients of government benefits have a protected property interest in those benefits, the federal courts of appeals have been split on whether those seeking such benefits are entitled to constitutional due process of law. The court answered that question in the affirmative. The court held that veterans acquire such a property interest because veterans disability benefits are non-discretionary, statutorily mandated benefits to which a veteran is entitled by satisfying of the requirements governing entitlement thereto. The facts in Cushman were particularly egregious. A VA employee apparently altered medical evidence so it would appear less favorable to Mr. Cushman’s claim. The court held that VA’s continued adjudication of his claim with this tainted piece of evidence in the record deprived him of entitlement to the sought-after benefits without due process of law. In so doing, it permitted him to overcome the finality of a prior 1980 Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision, and ordered a new hearing of his 1977 claim denied in that decision. It is through this ability to circumvent the finality of prior adverse decisions where Cushman may have its most significant impact. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the Federal Circuit will now have to wrestle with how egregious the VA action or omission must be to rise to the level of a deprivation of due process of law. In Gambill v. Shinseki, No. 2008-7120 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2009), for example, the Federal Circuit rejected the veteran’s argument that he was deprived due process of law by not being allowed to serve written interrogatories on the VA physician who prepared an adverse medical opinion. The court acknowledged Cushman, but declined to address whether due process of law compelled the relief Mr. Gambill sought. It held that even if such a right existed, VA’s failure to provide it to Mr. Gambill did not prejudice him. In separate, non-binding opinions, however, one of the panel’s judges explained why she believes due process of law compels providing claimants the opportunity to confront VA physicians who prepare the dispositive medical opinions in their claims, while another explained why he does not.

blanco I will take a "guess" at this, but maybe someone else can find the regulations. Your rating can not be reduced without the VA taking some very specific steps. First, they have to give you 60 days notice of a proposed reduction, giving you a chance to appeal the proposed reduction. Then, if your decision granting SC has been more than a year, they have to either show you committed fraud to obtain benefits OR that you have had "material improvement" and this has to be sustained..feeling better one day at a c and p exam is not "sustained improvement". I think, frankly, it is very difficult for them to "un service connect you". Many of the decisions the VA makes are judgement calls..and someone else could easily call it another way. If doc 1 says you are SC and doc 2 says you should NOT be SC, with everything else being equal, the law says the document of equipose applies, that is that it would need to be resolved in favor of the Veteran. There does enter into it time. In other words, if my regular doc saw me once every 2 months for 5 years, and decided that I had a SC connected depression, a doc who has seen me ONE time could say that he does not think my condition is SC, but the law would favor the longer term docs opinion over the doc making a single exam. Pretty much, they cant reduce your rating over a single C and P exam..they have to show longer term improvement, and a difference in judgement from the other doc should not hurt you. Many Vets eventually win benefits even when one doc opines unfavorably against the Veteran. Others can chime in, but I am pretty sure I have this about right.

Jerr No offense but I do think he should have been awarded IU because 3 months of employment does not meet the definition of "substantial gainful employment". His employment would be "marginal" and not disqualify him for IU. I am pretty sure the poverty level, below, is about $10,000 per year. His annual income was probably less than $6000 per year, and that would hardly be called substantial gainful employment: Marginal employment is generally deemed to exist when a veteran's earned income does not exceed the amount established by the U.S. Census Bureau as the poverty level for the veteran only. For more information on the U.S. Census Bureau's poverty thresholds, see http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld.html

I concur with the part if the VA finds out. I do not recommend "risking" your VA benefits for a part time job...if they do find out, you think your debts are bad now, wait until the VA "recovers" money they paid you while you were working. Dont do it. Find out the rules and abide by them. You will sleep better at night if you do. The VA is probably going to find out. First, if its a big company, they will report your wages to the IRS, who reports them to Social Security, who reports them to the VA. Its a matter of time. Further, there was a special on think tv last nite about "big brother" and how much he knows about us. There are thousands of video cameras in any big city, as well at malls, banks, etc. If you deposit this earned money to a checking account there will be an electronic record of it. Paying cash, even, does not guarntee your transactions wont be logged. If the VA is looking for cutbacks in a few years because we over spent on the stimulas/health care plan, dont put it past the VA to have some software that looks at video's of employees working while collecting VA benefits. I agree with the person suggesting you simply not pay the debt, or maybe negotiate it. As I mentioned, if the VA thinks they overpaid you, they will collect that money back from future benefits. I would much rather be in debt to a credit card company than the VA. The credit card company has to sue you, and win, in order to try to garnish your wages. However, there is no lawsuit with the VA. If the powers that be in the VA believe there is an overpayment they will take it out of future checks. Many times the credit card company wont sue you..the worst that could happen is that they put bad marks on your credit and make it difficult to borrow money..and I dont recommend you borrow money anyway. You probably already have a house, and if you need a car, try to find one u can pay cash for. I pretty much dont borrow money ever. The last thing I need is a car payment, credit card payment etc.

Tck If I understood your post, you got a rating reduction from 20% to 0% on one of your conditions. The VA has very specific rules on rating reductions that they must follow. One of the rules is that they cant reduce your rating without giving you 60 days notice and a right to appeal the reduction. If this is the case, You may consider filing a NOD, disputing the rating reduction without VA compliance with the rules for rating reduction. JMHO

Yes, I read this case, of course it was for social security and not VA, but, interestingly, the claimant was also 100% P and T with the VA. (Gee, I have never heard of social security being tougher than the VA). Does any one know if this case is pertinent to the VA, that is, is the VA bound by this decision or not...since it was NOT in a VA court (BVA-CAVC), would this case serve as as a precedent?

Berta..Gee you are a whiz, but is it not true that you have to file a MfR within 90 days of the BVA decision, or the BVA decision becomes final?

The VA has "lost" so many documents at so many RO's through so many years, that "losing" a Veterans documents can not be just a coincidence. I dont think this many documents could be lost if the Va published a fast letter saying that all new claims are to be immediately placed where they could not be located.

Berta.. I agree with your take that getting a good VCAA letter is critical, and could save 5 years or more on the hamster wheel. Excuse my ignorance but what does, "They made a statement as to the VCAA problem but found it non prejudicial" mean? I am guessing that it means they admitted a VCAA problem, but it did not have anything to do with the outcome, so they did not address it. I do not agree, however, with the poster who said that all of VA's problems are because of congress. That makes no sense because the VA has been a disaster for decades regardless of which congressman is in office. Again it boils down to bad management, but how can the VA keep picking bad managers year after year? The president does not reveal his criteria for selection of a Sec. of the VA, so it usually boils down to who the president owes favors to, and not who is the most qualifed for the position. The answer is that the system, where the Secretary of the VA is appointed by the president, is flawed, in part, because there is no accountability. If the VA were a commercial enterprise, the VA management would be held accountable to the shareholders, who could decide to change managers if the shareholders felt that management was not acting in shareholders best interest. We Veterans cant change the Secretary, even if we all voted to have the Secretary removed. The public is fed "the fox guarding the hen house's" statements who says that Veterans are doing just fine under the present system.

It looks like you have been put on "the hamster wheel" for 16 years and counting. The BVA addressed your CUE claim, but your RO never did your regular timely appeal, so your claim is pending and cant be "CUE'd" because Cue only applies to a finalized claim. Your RO needs to address your 1994 appeal..16 years later, and they continue to drag their feet, even with the BVA remand. IMHO your remedy is a Writ of Mandamus demanding that the RO comply with the law and move forward on your 1994 appeal, as well as implement the BVA remand which required, "expiditious treatment" Your writ will be more credible if you send your RO a "Notice of impendending Writ" to give them a chance to comply. In your notice of impending writ, you need to pretty much state what you will say in the writ. If they take your notice seriously, you may not ever have to file the writ..and that is the purpose of the notice of the writ..to keep stuff out of the courts that should be in the RO. However, in the end, it is highly unlikely that your "writ" will be granted by the CAVC, because they almost never are. Regardless of whether or not your writ is denied by the CAVC, your writ puts your RO manager "in the spotlight" and forces their hand. Right now, the Buffalo RO wants you to simply give up on your 1994 claim and they dont have any intention of giving you your appealate rights..or they would have done so 15 years ago. In your writ, you need to let them know that you are, in fact, entitled to an appeal, and a 15 year delay of justice amounts to justice denied. You need to further put them on notice that if the RO continues to deny your rights to due process, that it is the courts (CAVC's) responsibility to force the RO's hand, and to not let them deny your appealate rights by simply waiting until you die. You can either get a lawyer to help you with the writ (recommended) or use your VSO. Finally, I filed a writ myself on actually somewhat similar circumstances, and so can you. In my case, my writ was denied, but it accomplished its purpose of getting the RO off their duff and to make a decision. I ultimately won my claim about a year after filing the writ. I am not a lawyer, so I certainly recommend you obtain an experienced VA attorney and follow his advice to the letter. My father once said it this way, "The squeaky wheel gets the grease". There are a million Veterans waiting on the VA. Yours deserves to be addressed promptly because you have already waited 16 years. The VA wont do that however, and they just cherry pick the easy claims and leave yours sit for decades.

Whenever you refer to someone else as an idiot there are 3 possibilities: 1. This person is actually smarter than you are so what does that make you? 2. This person is equal in intelligence to you, so what does that make you? 3. Of course there is a chance that this person really is in a vegetative state, or perhaps suffers from dementia, ADD, or down's syndrome, and has symptoms that we could classify as foolish or senseless. In this case, it is in very poor taste to insult someone because of a medical condition and such behavior would be "utterly foolish or senseless". You can not make a stupid person smart by telling them they are stupid. So, when you call someone an idiot, which one of the 3 are you?

Well, I will stick up for Larry. u wouldn't fill en a job aplikashen lik dis, eh er wud u cuz maybe ef u did u probly aint gonna get no job nohow but if u hir me, den u shuld do so on a kounta i tink mabe i knocked up u doter but ef u do hir me i do good job az a va dokter no cuz i done seen dem doktor shows on tv en i think i cen hel dem der veterns and i gots ze pec a paper det saz i is a dokter ona counta i werked fer de va az a qtc comp in pen examiner an als i had to do waz to writ don dat de vetern sick but not from de armie an i get $500 ech time i do de exam. So, if you would honor a boss (or potential employer) by carefully filling in your application, checking spelling and punctuation, as well as grammer, then why would you disrespect a Veteran, or his advocate by doing the same?

Carlie.. You ARE good. That BVA decision even makes sense. I have heard of people counting the number of symptoms in each criteria..30% 70%, etc, and then see which one "more closely approximates" the Veterans current disability. However, medically documented suicidal ideation is hardly on the same level as, say, "speech intermittently illogical"/

Oh, yes, did you know that most passwords are case-sensitive? that means that Password is different than password, and wont be accepted by the computer. Some password policies insist that pAssWoRds have a mix of upper and lower case letters and the computer will not accept any letter not in the right case. I have people all the time who call me and tell me their password wont work, only to find out their CAPS LOCK was on. If they can navigate the computer, and log on to websites, etc., they usually understand what a capital letter is, and how it is used.

John.. Yes, that is very frustrating when the RO simply wont award those large retros..they pass em on the BVA. There is a recent case that pointed out that it is illegal for the Va to send only large retros to VACO, supervisors, etc. The Va does it to save money, but it is under the guise that it reduces fraud. It does not. The employee-frauds easily circumvent this system by simply awarding retros a bit smaller than the minimum. That is, when they check retros over 250k or 10 years, the frauds simply submit retros of $225k so they avoid this fraud check. It does not reduce fraud, it creates a loophole to enhance it. It is like putting a security guard at the front door and leaving the back door wide open. Another way to look at is they are putting a combination lock on the door, where the combination is on a sticky note 3 feet from the lock.

Remember this: Just because your RO decision says your medical records are negative for......condition, does not necessarily mean they are not in your medical records. It is highly possible, or even likely, that these records were shredded, in a different place, or just plain overlooked. Check your medical records, thoroughly, to see if they fail to mention what your decision says. If your medical records DO show that you had one of these conditions, but RO decision says nay, then you have a possible basis for CUE. The RO has to consider ALL the evidence, and there is a case referred to as "constructive receipt". I think what they are referring to as "constructive receipt" is that if your VA medical records were in the VA's hands, and you noticed that they Did NOT address an issue contained in your record, the VA is assumed to have those records whether they had them in their possession or not. I think the way it works when this happens, you can send in the medical records, and the VA has to regard them as if they had them at the time of the decision, that is, in reference to an effective date. I think this is New and Material Evidence, but the Veteran is not "docked" on the effective date because the VA lost your records. Someone else can chime in if you think I have this wrong. Carlie?

I'm with Larry. Spelling errors are one thing, but it is hard to beleive that people do not understand that a sentence begins with a capital letter, but can still type, and work a computer, navigating to this website, logging in, etc. I know several people who don't capitalize or use punctuation, NOT because they are not educated, but because they are lazy. It takes almost no time to use punctuation, and makes it much easier for people to understand what they are asking in order to help them. In the past, I have seen some people avoid punctuation but can pronounce and spell some complex words and are incredibly articulate. I will help people who poorly punctuate sentences because they are uneducated..I have no problem with that. However, when I see that people have a rather astute vocabulary, and still insist on "texting", that is, without capitals and periods, I am unlikely to put forth much effort in helping them.

Again, I agree with Berta, and would like to add an example of this, tho not necessarily MY example: Sample: Veteran applies for depression, and is awarded SC for depression at 30%. Medical record shows a history of suicidal ideations. For this example, refer to the rating criteria for medical disorders and their percentages. If you look at this criteria, you will see "suicidal ideations" is ONLY in the 70% or 100% categories, and NOT in 0%, 10%, or 30% categories. The presence/absence of suicidal ideations is a matter established by the medical records, and not a "judgement call". The doctor either documented you had suicidal ideations, or stated that you were not suicidal. I think an award for depression of 30% when a Veteran had a medically documented history of suicidal ideations would be grounds for CUE. This is my opinion only, and I can not cite a case/example. This is not a judgement call..it is in the rating criteria, and either the Rating specialist used the rating criteria or he did not. If he did not use the required rating criteria, then he did not follow regulations. Other rating criteria are not applicable. It is not applicable if the rating specialist likes your or not, and it is not applicable if the Veteran's religious beliefs conflict with the rating specialist.

Yulooking You have some choices here. Two of those choices are to "go it alone" or to post your info on hadit to get help here. Several hadit people have graciously offered to help if you post some details. That is a generous offer. You can still go it alone, or get a VSO/lawyer if you dont already have one. If you dont post those details, hadit members are unlikely to be able to give you any more help, except maybe to refer you to some sources, such as the Veterans Benefit Manual. This is your claim, and I wont criticize either choice..heck, I really dont like posting my medical details, RO decisions, BVA decisions, etc. either. I am not real keen on the idea of posting, for example, if I am on Levitra (Levitra is a medication for Erectile Dysfunction) or not. Of course, you dont have to post everything..just what you think is applicable. Well, heck. Ok, yes, I am on Levitra. And Yes, I suffered an injury in the military service which included a genital injury. No, I am not SC for ED or "loss of use of an organ" probably, in part, because I just dont like giving out details of this to a rating specialist or a VA doctor. Once, years and years ago, I worked at a hospital. Since I probably have already revealed "too much information", suffice it to say, that there was an "incident" at the hospital. My boss called me in about the incident, and I revealed to him about my military genital injury. Big Mistake. He told everyone. I am sure it was just too tempting to not repeat my story, as it was hilarious. When I told my father about it, he laffed so hard he cried. I gave him all the details..and even my own father once told a girl I was dating.."have you heard about (Joe..not my real name) injury to his ......" This woman was very nice, but she would never take my calls after what my father told her. My first date with her was the last, and I happened to know she liked me real well before. I may "delete" this stuff..soon. Actually, I would really like to be able to tell all the details for 2 reasons. 1) It is hilarious and even people who dont laff at anything laff at this. 2) There are serious lessons to learn from it. Ok..Im gonna click "Post"...this is gonna be real hard...I sure hope people cant figure out who I am from my hadit application..I really want to remain anonomyous, but I do want to tell this story..and it is true.

I agree with most of what has been posted, especially Berta who pointed out that to get an EED, you are going to have to prove CUE in a decision more than one year ago. When you are doing CUE claims be sure to base your CUE on errors of facts or law, not errors of judgement on the part of the rater. "I think he should have rated me 40% instead of 20%" wont pass the CUE test. Dig deep. Find a loophole in your favor. Read these over several times each: Your medical records, The related CFR regulations, schedule of rating criteria, and the RO decision(s). Look carefully at the "reasons and basis" in your decisions. Look for any conflict between any two of those 4. I think Berta said she had an "Aha moment" after reading her stuff like 12 times, discovering the way that eventually won for her. A similar thing happened to me. Write down what each says on a piece of paper: rating criteria; RO decision "R and B"; CFR; your medical records evidence Then list them all of those applicable to you. draw lines connecting them together, kind of like they were states and state capitals, and maybe state birds. One more thing..take it from "the captain" and NEVER GIVE UP.

I think this proposed rule is ridiculous. This proposed rule suggests that shredding only occurred between April 14, 2007 and Oct. 18, 2008 and this is wholly untrue and tries to minimize the Titanic going down, suggesting it was a leak in a bathtub squeaky toy. Further, if there were no shredding events before or after those dates, then the VA would have nothing to worry about anyway, and the "shredded documents" provision would not apply anyway. The proposed rules 18 month time limit, suggesting that gives claimants a year to complete their claim is also bogus. If they think they complete all claims in 12 or even 18 months, then they need to give Veterans some of the drugs they have been taking, so they dont care about their benefits anymore. I am adamatantly opposed to these limiting dates because: 1. By limiting it to those dates, the VA is condoning the illegal behaviour, suggesting that it is ok to shred Veterans documents except at those limiting dates. 2. By limiting the proposed rule to these dates, the VA can, once again shred docuements. There is no guarntee to Veterans that this can not or will not happen again, and even if not a single Veterans document is ever shredded again, there would be no consequence to the VA by "removing" those limiting dates. However, Veterans who had shredded documents before or after those limiting dates would be harmed. I recommend the passing of the proposed rule but without any such limiting dates, either April 2007 or otherwise.

My son gets Ch. 35, and the VA website talks about exceptions but they were non-specific, so I called. They talked about 2 exceptions: 1. Once you start, you are allowed to finish, even if your past the age (but not past age 31) 2. My son got "too old" waiting for Ch. 35 because it took them 7 years to approve my disability compensation, and he got a waiver pretty easily. I think there might be some other exceptions such as maybe if your child has something like ADD that causes them to learn slowly, etc. I could not find these exceptions written down, at the VA website, so I suggest the best way is to call them. (Be ready for a long wait). The VA uses the excuse about the new GI bill benefits applicants for huge, massive delays, so I suggest: 1. Apply EArly. 2. Dont count on the money being there on time for them to start school...my son's was months late even tho he applied 6 months ahead of time. Finally, I recommend your child apply for an education grant, also, as you can get both. Go to www.fafsa.gov