broncovet

Never Lie, but always give plenty of reasons favorable to your claim. If your back pain depresses you, for example, if you take pain meds for it, and you look up on the internet that depression is a side effect of the pain meds you are on, then tell your doc that. If you feel depressed because your back pain prevents you from being able to repair your house, fix your car etc, and you feel worthless because of it, then tell the doc that. If the pain medication you are taking disrupts your sleep, or makes you sleep longer, tell your doctor, and explain how you think your poor sleep habits contribute to your deprssion, then tell him. (One symptom of depression is poor sleep habits..inability to fall asleep, etc) After you go to the doc, go read his exam report. If he writes down what you said and it sounds like he is favorable to your claim, then keep seeing him. On the other hand, if he suggests you saying that the pain meds causing your depression is hogwash, then get another Doc..he isnt on your side. Get a doc on your side. You dont want to be treated by a doctor who is trying to help the VA reduce or deny your rating. You want one that cares about you, not about how much money is in government coffers.

I agree with Carlie. Fed EX it if you have to GET it there within a year..dont MAIL it within a year..but make sure they recieve it within a year. Take it to the RO and have them hand stamp it if you have to, but get that NOD filed in time no matter what. It could cost you tens of thousands of dollars for it to be late. Cue is very hard to prove. Rememeber the VA can take 20 years to process your claim and its not unreasonable, (according to them). However, if you are one minute late filing your NOD, then you can bet they will deny it.

Well this is the first time I filed for an EED, but I really dont see how another C and P exam would have anything to do with it..you are appealing the date of your award, and your rating is already established. I think Cowgirl said she won an EED, maybe she could answer from actual experience...just because it makes sense to us, does not mean it makes sense to the VA.. Oh, yea..you will probably have an agonizing wait..I am guessing it will be at least 2 years..maybe more, because I doubt that a DRO will stick his neck out and award benefits back to 1987..thats about 22 years and a potential for a 6 figure retro, and you will almost certainly have to go to the BVA, at a minimum, for that. JMHO. The VA is not in the habit of handing out a hundred grand easily ...well, that is, unless you are a VA employee who has screwed up and is requesting a bonus, especially if you are sleeping with the IT manager....then they hand out big bonuses easily. If you havent already read about this it is here: http://www.vawatchdog.org/09/nf09/nfaug09/nf082109-2.htm

Pete Thanks for your service to hadit members/Veterans. Take your well deserved time off and attend to your family matters and dont worry about the flame wars. Yes, I think you are right there is one person with several identities causing some trouble. I dont know if it is the same guy or not, but one of the other boards had some pretty serious trouble with a guy who was convinced that any Veteran with PTSD was a fraud. He said there was a drug available to "cure" PTSD but Vets wont take it because they would rather just collect money. He was a real nut job. He raised a lot of trouble and angered a lot of PTSD Vets...I dont know about you, but I do NOT want to tick off a PTSD Vet. I just hope he did not land a job with the VA...

Cherie A potential problem arises when SS awards benefits for a condition that is NOT service connected..the VA uses this to deny, suggesting that you are IU but for reasons which are not service connected. Carefully read the SS award letter and make sure that you are service connected by the VA for the conditions which the SS lists as disabling you. If SS says you are disabled for arthritis, for example, but the VA says you are SC for PTSD, (but denied your SC for arthritis) then I would NOT recommend using SS for evidence..use something else.

Skunk I am also appealing for an EED, and am also continuing to do research on it. Frankly, I think you are right that once the BVA said that passing the year was "harmless error", they cant go back and then say somehow it is not at a later date. However, I encourage you to "hit them with the whole enchilada" by carefully reviewing your old decisions (reread them all carefully, and try to apply case law to your case) as well as medical exams, to see if you cant nail em with a legal technicality, like they always do to us. That is, if you elect NOT to get a lawyer to do that for you, and plan on appealing your eed on your own. Remember the VA has the regulations to use against us..but we have the same weapon to use against them..the problem is their lawyers have legal knowledge we dont have. However, we have something they dont have...we have time, because we only have to work on our case and they have to work on lots of cases at once. We also have motivation on our side, because this affects OUR paychecks and our future, while the lawyers pretty much make the same amount whether they win or loose.

Skunk Lexis Nexus website offers this advice to Veteran advocates looking for an EED: (This was in my personal notes, and, even tho none of the below is my opinion, I cant find the link to this but am offering it anyway) 5.9 EFFECTIVE DATE FOR RATING INCREASES 5 .9.1 Staged Ratings Once the VA grants a claim for an increased rating, it must determine the date from which payment of the increased rating should begin. The date that governs when the change in benefit should be paid is known as the effective date of the claim. The general rule governing effective dates for claims for rating increases is that benefits are effective from the date that the VA received the claim or the date that entitlement arose (which means the date the disability increased in severity), whichever is later. 512 However, under certain circumstances, a veteran may be awarded an effective date which is earlier than this general rule. The effective date for an award of a rating increase may date back one year prior to the date of a claim for an increase if "it is ascertainable that an increase in disability had occurred" within this time frame. 513 The CAVC has stated that, in order to receive an earlier effective date, the veteran must submit evidence that indicates that there has been more than a marginal increase in disability. The veteran must show that the disability has increased to the next disability level within the year preceding the date of the claim. 514 In determining whether a disability has undergone an increase within the year preceding the date of the claim, the VA must consider all of the evidence of record. 515 Footnotes 512. 38 U.S.C.S. 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. 3.400(o)(1) (2007). 513. 38 U.S.C.S. 5110(:)(2); 38 C.F.R. 3.400(o)(1)(2) (2007); see Hazan v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 511, 520 (1997). 514. Hazan, 10 Vet. App. at 519. 515. Hazan, 10 Vet. App. at 518 ("section 5110((2) requires review of all the evidence of record (not just evidence not previously considered) as to the disability in order [to] . . . [determine] the 'earliest effective date' "); see also Scott v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 184, 189 (1994); Servello v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 196, 200 (1992). 5.9.1 Staged Ratings Because there may be a significant time delay between the date on which a veteran files a claim for an increased rating and the date on which the VA adjudication and appeals process is concluded, an issue arises as to what effective date should be assigned when the disability worsens between the date on which the veteran files his or her claim for an increased rating and the date on which the VA adjudication and appeals process is concluded. For example, on January 1, 1998, a veteran files a claim for an increased rating for a service-connected back disability that is currently rated at 10 percent. At the time that the veteran files his claim, he submits evidence that indicates that he should be rated at 20 percent disabled. The RO denies the veteran's claim for an increase and he timely appeals this decision to the Board. However, on March 3, 1999", while his case is pending on appeal to the Board, the veteran's back condition worsens and new medical evidence indicates that the veteran's disability should be rated as 60 percent disabling. The Board agrees with the veteran that his disability has worsened and that the veteran is currently entitled to a 60 percent evaluation for his back condition. However, the Board must decide what effective date should be assigned to the 60 percent rating. In Fenderson v. West, 516 the CAVC was faced with a similar issue. In Fenderson, the veteran was appealing the VA's initial rating of a service-connected headache disability. As in our example, the evidence in Fenderson indicated that the veteran's condition had changed between the date on which the veteran first filed his claim for an initial rating and the date on which the Board issued its final decision of the veteran's appeal of the initial rating assigned by the RO. The Court recognized that separate ratings may be assigned for separate periods of time based on the facts involved in the particular case. 517 This practice of assigning separate ratings for distinct periods of time is known as "staged ratings." 518 Although Fenderson involved an appeal of an initial rating, the principles articulated in that case apply equally to claims involving rating increases. As in claims for initial ratings, the VA is charged with the duty of assigning the effective date for rating increase claims based on the "facts found." 519 Therefore, when the evidence before the agency in a rating increase claim indicates that the veteran may be entitled to separate ratings for separate periods of time because of a change in the nature of the disability, the VA should assign staged ratings for the various time periods involved. In our example, the Board would be able to assign a 20 percent evaluation for the time period from January 1998 until March 1999, and a rating of 60 percent beginning March 1999. ** Advocacy Tip ** In cases that have been pending for several years, advocates are advised to submit, if possible, medical statements that support the highest possible evaluation from the earliest possible date. In some instances, advocates may want to submit a retrospective medical opinion that provides an analysis of the severity of the service-connected condition from the date the condition should have been service-connected. In some cases, it may be more advantageous for advocates to use the strategy of submitting evidence establishing a higher evaluation after the VA has established a retroactive effective date. Footnotes 516. 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999). 517. Id. at 126; see also Meeks v. West, 216 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (Federal Circuit affirms the CAVC determination that VA properly awarded veteran a staged rating from the date of his military discharge pursuant to 38 U.S.C.S. 5110(a), which provides that the effective date of an award of disability compensation "shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found"). 518. Fenderson, 12 Vet. App. at 126. 519. 38 U.S.C.S. 5110(a) states that "nless specifically provided otherwise in this chapter, the effective date of an award based on an original claim, a reopened claim after final adjudication, or a claim for an increase, of compensation . . . shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found. . . . ."

I would also like to comment the VA works very hard at making their system as confusing as possible. They are trying to confuse you out of your benefits, and this is what the VA does best. The only thing about the VA that is not confusing is who gets the bonuses. VA employees get bonuses, regardless of how bad the backlog is, but Veterans never get bonuses under any circumstances.

At least one of us is confused. Chapter 35 benefits, also known as Dependents Educational Assistance, is for dependents of deceased/100% P and T disabled Veterans dependents ONLY and cant be used by the Veteran. The Veteran can attend college with other VA benefits, but NOT Ch. 35. IMHO, again, unless I am the ONE confused, CH 35 benefits are NON transferable. Your dependents are either eligible for them or not, but they cant be transferred to the Veteran. Some of the other VA education benefits may be transferrable, from the Veteran to the dependent, but not CH. 35 as these benefits are for dependents, not Veterans. A similar situation exists with Champva. Champva is for dependents..not Veterans. As a Veteran, I would LOVE to be able to use Champva..that would mean I would be able to go to a private hospital/doctor, and not HAVE to use Veterans medical facilities. IMHO Veterans dependents get better medical care than Veterans.

Rock I agree with you. The VA frequently contracts with QTC for VA medical exams performed by persons with LESS than a medical degree, and then use this evidence to deny Veterans claims on a regular basis. If the VA can cite medical opinions of non Doctors to deny claims, then medical opinions less than a MD should be able to be used as evidence to approve Veterans claims as well. Also, the VA has rating specialists who are rarely qualified in either the medical or legal fields, yet these rating specialists make determinations of a legal and medical nature on a daily basis. Often the rating specialists lack of knowledge in either the medical or legal fields shows up at appeal decisions. Since the VA uses a layperson's opinion (a rating specialist) to judge the validity of a doctor's opinion on a Veterans condition, why would it not make sense to also consider your lay medical opinion? Your laypersons opinion should be just as valid as a rating specialists laypersons opinion! The only real answer is for your doctor to rate your claim and give you a rating, and then have a lawyer review it to see if it is legal. The VA does not do this, and instead relies upon the medical and legal opinions of a layperson rating specialist to determine your rating. Therefore, your lapersons opinion is just as valid as a rating specialists opinion, assuming neither of you are lawyers or doctors.

Cherie One thing you can count on with the VA...the VA will follow its own regulations ONLY when it is in their best interest to do so. I agree that one branch of the government considering you P and T while another branch of the government (the VA) making an opposite determination contradicts and confuses. While you can certainly point this out to the VA, the VA has so much "weasel room" in the regulations that they often interpret the "favor the Veteran" rule to mean "forget the Veteran", for example.

File an NOD and fight for your EED. Keep on fighting until you win.

This is the "tip of the iceberg". Time after time, VA pretends that things like this are "isolated incidents" and time after time, we find out these abuses are widespread. If it can happen in Arizona, are we supposed to believe it cant happen in St. Petersburg, or Cleveland, or NY or any other RO? The VA has no "checks and balances" system in place to prevent this thievery...it should have been detected and stopped long ago...long before it reached hundreds of thousands of dollars..or even millions of dollars like the IT fiasco. Its no wonder why the VA is so stingy at approving our claims and awarding benefits..they are far too busy stealing money and awarding each other bonuses to get down to the business of Veterans claims. There is only so much money..so that $300,000 HAD to come from somewhere, and I think it comes from legitimate Veterans claims being denied in order to award bonuses and to allow for this corruption to continue.

Received a call from the VA. I have appealed the effective date for dependents benefits. I have found, on my original application (21-526) in 2002 that my VSO has listed my dependent children. However, the 2004 RO decision stated they were paying me as Single, No dependents. The person who called said that, since it took more than a year for them to make the decision, I was required to send my dependents in AGAIN, when I did not do that, it meant I would never get paid for dependents from 2002 to 2006. Is this right? I have documentation that shows I listed dependents in 2002, and I thought that if there was a change, I was required to report changes..no report of changes meant no changes in dependents. Does anyone know of the regulations on this? I really dont see how they can deny my dependents benefits in 2002, when I have documentation to show that I applied for dependendents benefits back then. There is a shredding issue..I think they shredded my dependents form. Has anyone experienced this, or knows any regulation that says we have to put in for dependents a second time when it takes them more than a year to make a decision? I also got a decision today denying an EED on dependents benefits. In "reasons and basis", it says, "There was not additional dependency information furnished at that time". However, I have documentation to show that I did, in fact, list dependents at that time (2002).

While I certainly agree that these 1200 letters are a boondogle of massive proportions, I disagree that it was one or more incompetent employee's faults. I think this, and other VA scandals, are management issues, most likely in the highest levels of Va management. To put the blame on a few incompetent employees means that management can continue to plod along with their ineffective leadership style and repeatedly simply place the blame on incompetent employees at the next VA scandal. It is really really bad for a leader to blame his followers when ever anything goes wrong. Altho this is the VA way, it needs to change. If incompetent employees are the problem, then it is up to management to either get rid of them, or put them in a position where they cant harm others. It is kind of like the parents blaming their children...who is supposed to be watching over them? It is time VA management took responsibility for its past mistakes, and make REAL corrective changes instead of this same mumbo jumbo.. ...it was an isolated incident...(this means the problem is widespread, and they are unwilling/unable to deal with it) ..VA management have taken corrective action..(this means they are trying to cover it up) ..VA management denies that it has happened (until they can find a scapegoat to blame it on) Puleeze..dont blame your helpers! VA's motto, "If you cant fix the problem, then fix the blame" needs to be scrapped.

Great Carlie..your new link to Alex's posts works.

The post 9-11 GI bill will serve to further frustate Veterans. The VA knew about this new bill coming up for some time, so what did they do to prepare for it? Hire more people to process claims? No..they "decided" to frustrate at least 200,000 MORE Veterans to add their backlog to the already growing one million claim backlog for disabled Veterans claims. My son is trying to get Chapter 35 benefits, and the VA is whining that they cant process his claim in a timely manner because of the new GI bill. So, its even worse than we thought.

I know it sounds like I am a "nay sayer", however, Shinseki also recently promised to reduce homelessness in Veterans by 131,000. However, under his watch we saw the Veterans claim backlog actually grow..and keep on growing to almost one Million Veterans waiting on benefits. Further, his implementation of the new GI bill was even worse, adding 200,000 Veterans waiting on the VA to process education benefits to this mix. This new GI bill fiasco will frustrate Veterans who are counting on the VA to provide education benefits as it will be nearly impossible for the VA to deliver the post 911 GI bill benefits in time for school to begin this fall with this new backlog. Can someone tell me how delaying Veterans claims even more than they have been is going to reduce Veteran homelessness? I really do not want to see any more promises by Shineseki, I would like to see someone keep promises to Veterans for a change before I will believe him. Did politicians ever hear of under promise and over deliver? I heard the promises, but, so far there has been not only no delivery on promises, but the VA's problems are actually much worse than before.

My interpretation of your letter: "You are screwed. There is nothing you can do about it, so join the other millions of Veterans whose promise was broken by the VA." I say do something about it anyway. Rattle cages. Show them you wont quietly go away. Start in this order, giving about 2 weeks before progressing to the next step: 1. Send an IRIS email and explain situation. 2. Send a 21-4138 and explain situation. 3. Get your VSO to do the same. File a "Special Handling Request" due to lost/shredded documents before Nov. 1. 2009. 4. Call the toll free number and ask for explanation. 5. File a "notice to file writ of mandamus" with your VARO 6. After 60 days, file a writ of mandamus.

As far as the "cut off" goes, it is not going to make much difference for your education benefits if you are 80% or 100%. The "cut off" is when you were in the service. Your period of military service defines which, if any, education chapter you qualify for. You can try to figure it out here, but good luck: http://www.gibill.va.gov/

I think I have this right, someone correct me if I am wrong. 1. You can get education benefits depending on when you were originally in the service..Gi Bill, Montgomery GI bill, etc. 2. You can ALSO apply to Voc Rehab, and probably get Voc rehab education benefits. Your dependents can get CH 35 (Dependents Educational Assistance) from your 100% P and T. No, I dont think you can collect multiple education benefits at once, such as GI bill and VOC REhab.

I filed a NOD in March, 09. Since this Decision was ALREADY a DRO review, I did not think I could ask for a DRO review on a decision that was a Decision Officer Review. However, they sent me a letter and asked if I wanted a DRO review or BVA appeal. I thought about it and sent the form back and elected another DRO review, therefore, I guess my appeal is waiting DRO review.

Niki The VA has a special regulation: Whenever possible, the VA operates in the most inefficient, and least favorable to the Veteran as possible. They could well have messed up your dependents. I have been trying to get them to award my dependents since 2002, and they still have never paid me for dependents until 2006. I am trying to get back pay from 2002 through 2006. Fortunately, I found my original application listing my dependents and I have filed a "Special Handling Request" due to shredded documents. That is, my dependent benefits were assumed to be lost, when I have copies of them. The VA is so busy awarding bonuses to its employees, they dont have time to process Veterans claims.

Yes, I actually got "fast" claim service at the Va..they finally did mine in a little over 7 years. I do have a friend, in group counseling, who also applied in 1973..he is hoping for an answer on his claim "any day". The VA saying that it takes an average of 6 months to processs a claim is a massive distortion of the truth. A denial may take only six months..but what use is a denial to a Veterans..it just means he starts and a very long appeal process.

Testvet is right..Buyer gave Howard complete control over the IT department $2 billion budget with zero accountability. I think it was a couple months ago when Shinseki suspended IT projects because they were late and way over budget...gee I wonder why they were over budget, when the hired family members, paid people full time for part time "work" and showed nepotism and favoritism. The rest of the VA also does not have accountability either and regularly awards VA employees bonus money while Veterans wait on theirs. I think some people should go to prison for this. The IT department is just the tip of the iceburg, and I certainly hope this scandal leads not to additional promotions and bonuses, for covering it up, but rather to prosecution and jail time. There are some bad apples at high level positions at the VA, and they need weeded out for Veterans to make any progress. Unfortunately, in the VA, corruption is rewarded with big bonuses and promotions. For example: http://www.vawatchdog.org/08/nf08/nfdec08/nf120408-1.htm I think the former Cleveland VARO manager used the famous Enron defense: He claimed he did not know that the employees were stealing money. In private industry, Enron CEO's go to jail, when they steal money in the VA, they get promoted to the Central office.