broncovet

Does any one know how much being over age 55 works into this? Also, does having your claim in appeal for an earlier effective date affect whether or not a C and P will be scheduled? In theory, if your file was at the BVA, then they would not even know to schedule you a C and P exam, because there is only one paper copy of your file. Has anyone been scheduled for a C and P exam, while they have a claim at the BVA?

Tinnitis is rated at 10% regardles if it is one or both ears. Nobody gets 20% for tinnitus, unless something has chaned recently.

I think what he wrote could be "reasonably construed" to mean "at least as likely as not". However, you cant be assured a government worker would see it that way, so better is to use the exact words, "at least as likely as not" because the VA is not good at connecting the dots. Is it too late to call the doctor and ask him to use those words? If not, by all means eliminate doubt in your mind by having him write it up the VA way.

I would comment here that the lawyers fee is usually limited to 20% of the retro, but has to be reasonable to be approved by the court. If your Retro was $100k and all your lawyer had to do was request a DRO Review, I kind of doubt they would say $20k was reasonable for a DRO review filing, so, in a way you are a little bit protected from excessive laywers fees. I dont know that this has been tested in court, tho. I contacted 2 lawyers in my case, and both of them said I can resolve the issue myself at the RO level and suggested if the DRO fails, consider recontacting them. A well known lawyer suggested that you ask yourself this question: "Can a lawyer make me money" If you think the lawyer can get you a larger retro than you can on your own, then by all means hire him. However, if you have lots of time on your hands, can use a computer, and like to do research for your cause, then you may be able to do this yourself. I think a VSO is ok for "basic" stuff..for example, if you dont know what a NOD is, then you should ask a VSO to explain it to you. My experience, tho, is that VSO's, who have no financial interest in winning your claim, wont do the in depth analysis necessary to win many complex claims. And, the VA has a way of making the most simple of all claims extremely complex. In the end, I think you should look at it this way: If you can go to the VSO and he can fill out forms for you in a half hour and win your benefits, then by all means utilize this free service. However, if you are expecting the VSO to go through hundreds of pages of medical reports, multiple RO decisions, IMO's and IME's, it is not happening. A lawyer will do that for you, tho, because he is getting paid handsomely to do just that. IMHO if you need an IMO, then you probably need MORE than just a VSO.

Yes, purple, each VARO "goes their own way". Further, whenever management at a VARO changes, the new manager interprets regulations as he or she sees fit, regardless of how the "old" VARO management saw it. This is part of what we are complaining about...the VA inconsistently applies its regulations. "Favor the Veteran", for example, is interpreted by some VARO managers as "Forget the Veteran".

Your address is a tool the VA uses to manipulate and deny about 17% of VA claims. They send your C and P request to your old address, and they get away with that because every department in the VA (Comp and Pen, Voc Rehab, VHA, VBA, Insurance, etc) is different and they dont share your address with them, so you have to change your address in every single department. The VAOIG explains here how the VA manipulates this to deny claims: http://www.vawatchdog.org/09/nf09/nfjun09/nf062609-1.htm Its a trap they use to deny about 17% of the Veterans claims. Dont let them do that to you.

I recommend the VA first. If you get a doc you are comfortable with, he can help you. If you get one that you dont agree with, then fire him and get you one you are comfortable with.

I agree with Larry. They write on the board the "excuse of the day", something like: Excuse number 8: Your claim is being rated. (for Thursday callers) Excuse number 6: We have no record of your claim. (good for most any day when you forget todays excuse) Excuse number 3: Your claim has been partially denied and partially approved, pending me quitting tommorrow. Excuse number 2: This is not the VA, this is the IRS and dont call again or we will audit you. Excuse number 0: We need you to send in your DD214 again. Just go fishing, or do something else that you love. A watched pot never boils so dont wait for the mailman.

Did it ever occur to anyone that by cleverly pretending to take sides with the enemy that his captors may not kill him? I dont think this soldier should be killed, rather, I think our military should try to determine his location and rescue him. He may be able to provide great intelligence to us, and deserves the benefit of the doubt on any issues of desertion. It sounds like instead of killing an American Soldier, I think the firing of a "journalist" sounds like a better idea to me.

IMHO, especially if this was your first denial, you dont need a lawyer. Read your decision carefully, and look at your C file. Then write a NOD something like this "template". Be sure to note that you should dispute issues that you applied for but were not addressed in the decision, as the courts have ruled these issues are "deemed denied", that is secretly denied, and that secret denial can become final after a year if it is not appealed. Its a trap. Smith, John T 123-45-6789 Notice of Disagreement I disagree with the Regional Office Decision Dated July 24, 2009 and desire to contest the result with a Decision Officer Review on the following issues: 1. I disagree that my condition of depression is not service connected. I had multiple depression issues while in the military, and my doctor said that my depression was most likely due to trauma suffered in the military. 2. I further disagree with my hearing loss service connection at zero percent. My audiologist did a hearing test and fitted me with hearing aids and a cochlear implant. I think the rating should be higher than 0% disability rating, especially considering that I am unable to understand speech and have to use sign language for communication. 3. The issue of NSC pension was not addressed by this decision when I requested it at the time of application. I disagree with this "deemed denial" and feel entitled to a NSC pension as I am unemployed. I certify the above is true to the best of my knowledge. ____________________________ _______________________________ John Smith Date

Tag and Bag...You should be very greatful that the VA ADMITTED to loosing your papers. Most of the time the VA looses the papers, then blames the Veteran for not sending them in, or, more often, accuses the Veteran of lying about actually sending them in. If you are sure they lost your papers, you might oughta request "Special Claims Handling" for mishandled documents BEFORE NOV, 2009. Because, if they have their way, if you dont complain that VA lost your papers BEFORE Nov., 2009, then them loosing your papers will become Final, and we Vets wont have anything to say about it. The VA is already whining at me because they lost my papers in 2002, when the "shreddergate" scandal wasnt brought to light until Oct. 2008. You see, the VA gives Veterans multiple deadlines, and if you pass any of them, your claim is denied. However, the VA has no deadlines. If it takes 37 years to process your claim, that is the Veterans fault for not resending his paper work in the 64th time even when the VA lost them 63 times.

This DRO's statement is here: http://www.afge.org/Index.cfm?Page=CongressionalTestimony&Fuse=Document&DocumentID=2088 "Our members regularly report that they are supervised by managers who have little or no experience performing the complex functions involved in processing disability claims, rendering their roles as mentors and trainers ineffective. Managers without sufficient expertise are also unable to carry out quality assurance duties, leading to greater errors, which in turn lead to more appeals, remands and other delays. The requirement in the law that VBA consult with all stakeholders, including employee representatives, in order to improve the certification process will ensure the development of effective exams that test for appropriate skills. AFGE understands that the design process for certification testing of first line supervisors, Assistant Service Center Managers, and Service Center Managers is imminent or has already begun. Unfortunately, employee representatives have not been given the opportunity for input into this effort. VBA must include employee representatives in the design process to ensure that management certification is sufficiently rigorous, and therefore, adequately prepares managers and employees who perform quality review of the work of VSRs, RVSRs and DROs. Workplace morale also suffers when front line employees work under intense pressure to adjudicate complex claims while supervised by managers who have not done and do not understand their jobs."

I dont think it has been extended, however, I will supply the link: http://www.gibill.va.gov/GI_Bill_Info/benefits.htm#DEA

Congratulations..It sounds like you will have to wait a little longer for your money, tho, it probably will be worth it since it sounds like your retro will be six figures

The following is from select CAVC cases showing that if you were awarded benefits, and you told your doctor before the effective date of your claim you were unemployed, then you can appeal an effective date: Else vs West On appeal, the appellant essentially contends that the RO, in 1990, had treated the appellant's submission of the 1989 private medical records as an Previous Hitinformal claimNext Hit for an increase and that, because the RO never forwarded to the appellant a formal application form, the time for filing a formal application was tolled. http://search.vetapp.gov/isysquery/3583606...a4fa2cf6/2/doc/ Mingo vs Nicholson http://search.vetapp.gov/isysquery/3583606...a4fa2cf6/3/doc/ <a name="term1_9"> VA is required to identify and act on informal claims for benefits. 38 U. S.C. 5110((3) (2006); 38 C.F.R. 3.1(p), 3.155(a). The Board commits remandable error when it fails to consider evidence that may be construed as an earlier application or claim, formal or informal, entitling the claimant to an EED See 38 U.S.C. 7104( a); Servello v. Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 196, 198-99 (1992). Although "[t]he mere existence of medical records generally cannot be construed as an informal claim such records may constitute an informal claim"when an underlying claim has been awarded . . . or when an underlying claim has been denied and the medical records evidence new and material evidence to reopen the claim." Criswell v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 501, 504 (2006). In the case of a report of examination or hospitalization by VA, "when such reports relate to examination or treatment of a disability for which service-connection has previously been established," "[t]he date of outpatient or hospital examination or date of admission to a VA . . . hospital will be accepted as the date of receipt of a claim." 38 C.F.R. 3.157((1) (2007). An for a rating increase triggered by receipt of medical records may implicate consideration of TDIU. See Norris v. West, 12 Vet.App. 413, 420-22 (1999); see also Sears v. Principi, 16 Vet.App. 244, 249-50 (2002), aff'd, 349 F. 3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In this case, the appellant alleges that, because "VA is the primary source of [her] health care, and since she was already service-connected, the VA had a continuing obligation to adjudicate any claims for additional benefits related to her service-connected conditions based on . . . VA medical treatment." Appellant's Br. at 7. The Secretary responds that " evidence may exist that could be used to establish a claim for an EED for TDIU; however, there is no assertion that actual evidence does, indeed, exist." Secretary's Br. at 12. He goes on to state that "[t]he mere existence of evidence prior to May 1998 . . . would not create an informal claim nor would it constitute a claim outright." Secretary's Br. at 12. The Secretary's argument is unavailing; if there are medical records that document a worsening of the appellant's service- connected sinus condition prior to the appellant's inquiry in May 1998, such records might constitute an informal claim for an increased rating based on 38 C.F.R. 3.157(:D. Indeed, the appellant notes that the RO relied on VA treatment reports from March 1998 throughout its claim evaluation. Appellant's Br. at 6 ( citing R. at 72-73, 75-77, and 79-82). Because the Board did not consider these treatment records as potentially raising an informal claim and because the record before the Court is devoid of evidence that VA considered additional prior-treatment records, the Court cannot conclude that records relevant to establishing an earlier effective date do not exist. .... Jones-Shinseki http://search.vetapp.gov/isysquery/e76aa21...dd3db/2/hilite/ Mr. Jones argues that, under Myers v. Principi, 16 Vet.App. 228 (2002), a VA procedural error can cause a claim stream to remain open. In particular, he contends that once he filed an NOD with the February 1974 RO decision, that claim, then in appellate status, remained open and pending until issuance of an SOC or Board decision adjudicating that claim. He argues that no finality attached to the subsequent adjudications as a result of VA's failure to issue an SOC following his March 1974 NOD. Once a decision is issued by the RO, a claimant has the right to "one review on appeal to the Secretary." 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a). The appeals process begins with a claimant's filing of an NOD from an RO decision, which triggers VA's duty to issue an SOC. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105(a), (d)(1). Only after an SOC has been issued may a claimant file a Substantive Appeal to the Board. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d)(1). If the Secretary fails to act on a claim or if he fails to provide the veteran with information or material critical to the appeal, that claim remains pending. See Cook v. Principi, 318 F.3d 1340, 1334 (2002) (citing Hauck v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 518 (1994)); Norris v. West, 12 Vet.App. 413, 422 (1999); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.160© (2008) (defining a "pending claim" as "[a]n application, formal or informal, which has not been finally adjudicated"). Here, the Secretary does not contest Mr. Jones's contention that his September 1973 claim was put into appellate status by a March 1974 NOD and remained pending through subsequent adjudications because of VA's failure to issue an SOC; the Court will not hold otherwise. See Tablazon v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 359 (1995) (determining that a 1975 RO decision never became final, because without an SOC, the appellant was unable to file an appeal to the Board). This Court has indicated, however, that where the claim was placed into appellate status by virtue of an NOD, subsequent RO decisions cannot resolve the pending claim. "[O]nce an NOD has been filed, further RO decisions, which do not grant the benefit sought, cannot resolve the appeal that remains pending before the Board. Only a subsequent Board decision can resolve an appeal that was initiated but not completed." Juarez, 21 Vet.App. at 543. The Court agrees that Juarez's reasoning applies here: An appeal can only be resolved by an appellate body, i.e., the Board. In other words, VA's failure to provide appellate review can only be cured by subsequent Board adjudication of the same claim.

This case is very, very bad news for Vets, IMHO. If the RO "lowballs" the claim, and gives a low disability rating, they can also refuse to consider the case for extra scheduler rating and use a generic, "this case is not unusual" in its reasons and basis for denying TDIU.

If you were on medication, such as prozac, there should be records of these prescriptions being filled. If you did not file for benefits until after that, it may not matter, other than an IME. You may well get an IMO from the psychologist who said he destroyed the records. Just a suggestion.

Purple... I have received medical treatment from VA medical Center since 2002. About 2 years ago I had chest pains and Dayton VA was full, so I was sent to the Dayton Heart Hospital. At Dayton heart, I was diagnosed with an enlarged right side of my heart..due to sleep apnea..in one day. Dayton Heart made a diagnosis which saved my life...untreated sleep apnea had caused my heart to make up for this lack of oxygen by enlarging. If still untreated, my heart would continue to enlarge until I went into defib, and congestive heart failure. Dayton VA could not make this diagnosis in 7 years, Dayton heart correctly diagnosed my problem in one day. There is an enormous difference between the level of care at the VA vs Dayton Heart (a private hospital). To be fair to the VA, I had never seen a cardioligist at Dayton VA, so it is not too suprising that my heart problem went undiagnosed/untreated. It is certainly possible, or even likely, that a VA cardiologist could also have made this diagnosis..but I was never referred to one. The VA is "rationing" health care. Its a very good example of why universal health care is a very bad idea, as there would be rationing of health care universally, instead of just at the VA. In other words, unless you have some obvious cardiac symptoms, you wont be referred to a cardioligist, and then, it could be too late. There are several screening exams that can detect heart problems early, but, as far as I know those screening tests are not offered to Veterans WITHOUT a referral by your primary care doc. My advice: Dayton Heart and other private hospitals often offer free screening. I recommend you go to a health fair, and get bloodwork, blood pressure tests, get tested for glucose (possible diabetes), and heart screening. Get the works.

The original post contains this statement which is not only highly political,it is quite controversial, and even biased against a political party: "The Bush administration saw DVA health care as an entitlement to cut rather than a right earned by those that served their country." The above statement is a direct attack on our former president. With a beginning like the above, should we be suprised when this post turns into a political rant?

Pete My wife is a nurse..and she and the doctors agree that Universal Health care would be very, very bad for our country. It really sounds good to socialize medical care but who is going to pay for the medical care for the hundreds of millions of the presently uninsured? The rich? I dont think so. They will just hire more accountants to get out of paying more taxes, as they always have. The poor? They dont have it. And the middle class is already paying taxes up to their neck, and will be paying even more in the future. Universal health care is not the answer, preventive health care is the answer. It is much cheaper to buy vitamins than to treat scurvey.

In Canada, they have universal health care and those people come here for medical care as there is a one year wait there. Here, the VA system is the closest to Universal Health Care we have, and I am not sure it would be in the best interest of our country, after all, do we want EVERY hospital not bothering to sterlize their equipment like the VA does? Havent we learned enough with the VA boondoogles to avoid repeating this on a massive scale?

Most of us have "good days" and bad days. When they ask how you are..dont lie..just tell them about Thursday.. "Thursday, I was about to go off the deep end...it did not go well at all...I was very angry about...." In other words never lie to them..just simply tell them about your worst day, not your best day..today may be your best day, so tell them about the bad one. JMHO...It is ok to have planned out in your head which day you are going to talk to your C and P examiner about..again, dont make stuff up..just tell them about the bad days. Its kind of like the news..it isnt newsworthy for them to talk about nothing happening today..but it is newsworthy about the car accident you were in where you wrecked your car and almost died last week.

I am unaware of anyone getting positive results by contact with the Secretary. Since your claim has been delayed about 4 years, you could consider filing a writ of mandamus..that usually gets their attention.

I agree with Pete and Berta. There are some possibilities about the discrepencies between the number of POW's listed by the VA and the other numbers. 1. There are more POW's than they kept track of because war is very confusing. Did that soldier get seperated from his unit because he was hiding from the enemy, because he was captured, because he was just plain scared, or because he went AWOL? There may not be very many witnesses who are willing to talk, possibly because they are dead. It is possible, or even likely, that several of these things happened to a soldier..he could have gotten lost..the enemy could have killed the rest of his unit, he could have been scared, or he even could have escaped from his captors and been unable to unite with his unit and considered AWOL. We just dont know. 2. There is a possibility VA is guilty of fudging the numbers. It wont be the first time the Va fudged numbers to make themselves look good..only this time it may have backfired. 3. There is a possibility of VA employee fraud..doctoring of documents making their brother or neighbor look like a POW, and then splitting the Retro with him. 4. And finally, possible Veteran fraud. This seems to be the least likely, because the VA makes Veterans prove EVERYTHING multiple times rendering it nearly impossible for the Veteran to get away with this without "inside" (VA employee) help, even if they were so inclined. IMHO items 1,2, and 3 are ten times more likely than Veteran fraud. There are many, many safegaurds to catch Veteran fraud, but almost none to catch Va employee fraud.

No, I didnt put it on that form, but I found my original 21-526 form listing my dependents back in 2002. I have not been paid for dependents from 2002-2006, but I am appealing this.