tk3000

Yes, I do. In spite of all my attempts to explain the nature of the situation the rational that came along with the SOC for the EED appeal was basically the same (as pointed out above). However, my understanding is that I elected the traditional appeal process and filed out a form 9 on occasion of filing the EED appeal, but the new SOC indicates that I have 60 days to file a form 9. Also, on the ebenefits website it is indicated that my form 9 has been received. So that is confusing... thanks

Hello Gastone, Sure enough, this thread was dormant for a long time... And all of a sudden I resurrected it, it is partly due to long wait time to get even the most minimal thing done at the VA that we are used to. Correct, the mainstay herein is the EED that I initially claimed on my initial appeal to BVA as been retroatctive to 2010, but the BVA went beyond that initial claim and established an early effective date going back to Oct 2007 based on its duty of assist and the theory of an even earlier effective date raised by the record. In order to follow BVA's order, the RO would have to remand the claim and issue a new SOC with aforementioned earlier effective date (Oct 2007), but the Regional Office simply did not follow suit and instead simply granted the an early effective date retroactive to 2010 and closed my appeal thus forcing me to file another appeal for the appeal. It seems that the VA lacks even the most rudimentary understand of due process and on how to following its own rules and regulations. The original debacle of not following the remand or granting an early effective date of Oct. 2007 was a blow dealt with by the Detroit RO, but once the claim was transferred to Cleaveland the same pattern was followed (after requests of reconsideration explaining the situation, etc) , and ultimately after two years in the making I received another SOC stating the same thing they stated before and completely ignoring the remand and the early effective date of OCt 2007 as established by the BVA. There are lots of regulation and rules they simply copied and pasted, ironically of rules and regulations that they lack even the most basic understanding. But the essence of the SOC is the following sentence: "Entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of individual unemployability is denied because April 23, 2010 is the date your claimed individual unemployability"

Yes, it has. It is a remand that never took its due course: instead of issuing a supplemental statement of the case making a case for retropayments going back to October 2007 (as laid out by the BVA's decisions and deliberations based on its duty to assist), the RO simply granted retropayment back to 2010 (which is what I asked for, but the BVA went above and beyond based on evidence raised by the record thus granting retropayment going back to October 2007). About two years ago, I filed a timely NOD electing the traditional appeal process... After all the whirlwind of time (two years since NOD), I receive another statement of case that reinstates the absurdity of the first one which then seemed to have been written by someone who was lobotomized or choose to completely ignore the pertinent points raised on my NOD and the BVA decision itself. It simply stated the following: "Entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of individual unemployability is denied because April 23, 2010 is the date your claimed individual unemployability"

Lack of accountability, incompetency, ignorance and stupidity all play a huge role. Few days ago, I received the SOC for this appeal that I filed selecting it to be handled at BVA (traditional appeal) level instead of the DRO (another waste of time). Within the SOC they yet again denyed the appeal providing unsubstantiated and disconnected basis for their denial. I tried to be very didactic and spell out the points made and principles evoked by the BVA on its rules, but it feels that they have not clue. I am a little bit rusty with all that the VA process, but I believed that on occasion of filing my appeal I elected to have it going to the BVA and filed the form 9 accordingly. Nonetheless, the SOC seems to require me to file a form 9 again or else they will dump my appeal/case.

Yeah, these are systemic-chronic issues. The more I see it, the more clear it seems that they deliberately deny claims because they have the wanton desire to do so: they are not only wrongfully misadjudicating and failing to follow basic premises of the due process; they are plain and simply committing a crime against the public whom they get paid to serve, and a very special segment of the public who deserved better. If it was in China they would be shot dead point blank, here they pretend that nothing happened and maybe at best they are sent for retraining. In spite of not having a good tracking record in terms of freedom of speech, etc; certain aspects of the Chinese justice and legal system seem much more reasonable to me: crimes against the economic order and crimes against the well-being of the public should be taken very seriously.

It went back to May 1, 2010, which was the date I originally filled the IU claim. It should go all the way back to 2007 as determined by the BVA.

In introductory write up I pointed out all the relevant sections, pages, paragraphs, and setences (and also highlighted the sentences). I will post a link to a version of this doc shortly. I will look into this M21. I m in the hope that they could simply do something right and rectify their obvious and obtuse mistake. A CUE amounts to another claim which then amounts to another process.

Yep, but seemed to miss the whole thing. As if they did not read the BVA resolutions at all.

It seems that both the email of the Undersecretary (Hickey) and Secretary McDonald are permanent disabled. => My bad. Apparently they block attachments of 11MB size, which is a very trivial size for todays standards. I compressed the file (BVA and some notes of mine) to 7MB, so now it went through

But I never assumed anything, never assume that they are going to retrieve any document; so I prefer to send them the documents and point out which page, paragraph and sentence they should read. In this claim was filed to rectify their clear error in not following BVA decisions... well, after all, I found out that they decided to call it a claim for increase; as if it was an entire new claim not related to a well established BVA decision that they simply failed to read or decided to ignore. I guess I should have sent copies of the BVA decision instead of following the advice of my county rep and assume they would retrieve it. I certainly believe that they would have retrieve or at least check out what the BVA entered in their system, but have I sent a copy of the originals it would make it more obvious or they would be less inclined to deliberately ignore it.

I see your point, but sometime repetition is a good resource to reemphasize a point, specially when your interlocutor is likely to let things go amiss and astray. Having said that I can lots of confusion in some of these early drafts and they certainly needed to be reviewed, edited, and polished. For instance, my Left Leg condition was part of the appealate process (that I was unaware of) and an increase in its rating was denied. My medical records have literally thousands of pages. In case I knew it would be reconsidered by the BVA, I would have concocted and concatenated one or two pages of document that would substantially increase its chances of success.

Yep, all the wheels will start to turn now; and I will spend lots of time researching and typing! I will keep you posted

Exactly! The IU claim was initially filed in 2010 which as a claim form was denied by the RO, subsequently I filed a formal appeal and it was re adjudicated by RO (it seems that the RO tried to reach a consensus before forwarding the appeal to the BVA and thus requested another C&P which was overwhelmingly favorable towards my case). Due to the fact the C&P was overwhelming favorable towards my claim, the RO granted the IU; but then they only went back to about 6 months (instead of going back to 2010) in terms of retropayment. The subject of Reasonable Raised Issues is contemplated by the following principle and jurisprudence: " It is well settled that on appeal the Board has a duty to address all issues reasonably raised either by the appellant or by the contents of the record. Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 545, 552-56 (2008). In Robinson the Court determined that, because proceedings before VA are nonadversarial, "the Board's obligation to analyze claims goes beyond the arguments explicitly made." 21 Vet. App. 545, 553 (2008), aff'd sub nom. Robinson v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009). "It is entirely possible that the record might 'indicate' a theory of entitlement, but that a lay appellant might not be sophisticated enough to recognize the theory," meaning that "a theory can be both unknown to the appellant and suggested by the record." Id. (citing Ingram v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 232, 256–57 (2007)). " This is the principle raised by the BVA based upon which a potential early effective date going back to 2007 for my IU retropayment is sustained and substantiated. The RO then decided to ignore these basic premises, guidelines, and orders as raised by the BVA and simply grant a retropayment going back to 2010 (as initially claimed by me).

The thing about the remand is that it was only about the IU early effective date, Few weeks after having received the BVA letter via mail I got an awarding letter from the RO, but this awarding letter was only about the TDIU early effective date. It seems that in the remanding phase the RO decided to grant the IU early effective that I had requested initially ( back to 2010) instead of sending the case to the BVA for further adjudication. Besides not having been granted the rating increases defined by the BVA for the GERD and the Ankle, the awarding letter reasoning and development (bases and reasons) of the case for granting me an early effective date for IU was a really rudimentary one, so it must having been a decision that took place at the RO given that they assumed that the BVA would grant the early effective date anyway; but on doing so they also managed to void and avoid following the BVA guidelines (as stated on the BVA decision) for an early effective date potentially going back to 2007. This 2007 potential early effective date is stinging me right now.

Thanks, I will look into these steps closer. Communicating directly the BVA is something I haven't considered or done yet, and it may be a better approach.

Today I went to the VA Ambulatory Center in Columbus, OH, in order to inquire about and explain the situation. At first, I talked with a very nice guy whom is in charge of scheduling C&P appointments and proceeded to explain to him the nature of the situation, and everything was very sensible and intelligible for him; but then he indicated that he only did the scheduling and were not into the adjudicating process and its steps so he could not relay any message to the RO on my behalf, And in order to relay a message to the Cleveland RO he took me to talk to someone at the same medical facility who happens to be Veterans Administration Benefits representative. All along, talking to this VAB guy was one of the most obnoxious and obtuse experiences I have ever had in my life: he was basically trying to convince me that the whole thing was part of the remanded early effective date for the IU and that the SMC was the key word for the whole thing. He was therefore indicating that the RO would re-adjudicate a well deliberated, determined, and decided appeal by the BVA which have already gone through all the claim and appeal process, motions, and steps and have ultimately been decided at the BVA level should then go back to be decided yet again by the clowns at the RO only because the name REMAND alongside the key word SMC were present even although the remanded portion have no relation or correlation whatsoever of any nature, shape, or form with this scenario concerning the “GERD” and “Left Ankle” appeals and subsequent failure of the RO to update the ratings. I thought I had seen everything but this guy really took the meaning of distortion to a whole new level.

I am attaching a copy of the penultimate page extracted from BVA decision letter It turned out that I also noticed something which I have failed to notice before, and this thing seems to be a very positive thing if it turns out to be true: it mentions a much earlier (2007) potential effective date for the IU early effective date appeal Below are links for the penultimate and last page: https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8678/16698512216_01c5e8cba3_z.jpg https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8651/16723416912_aca5e29fbc_b.jpg

This originally was an appeal for an initial decision which granted a lower rating. The appeal was initially done at the RO level by a DRO (huge mistake, only caused more delays) which maintained the RO decision. Then, the appeal was escalated to the BVA (traditional appeal) which recently granted the higher ratings. Simple enough. And, yes, I received a letter directly from Washington D.C. with BVA decisions that clearly granted the higher ratings. As I previous indicated this a fact, and there is not even the faintest shadow of doubt about this fact.

Berta: Having another C&P requested by the RO for a well established decision made by the BVA seems completely illogical and irrational. The RO would simply have to re-read the BVA determination and decision that they failed to fully read to begin with and then rectify their mistakes. The idea that I would have go through the motions of another C&P for a fully developed and decided claim at the BVA level simply because the RO employees are illiterate is rather insane to say the least In reality I bought a house in Columbus, OH, and request to have my address changed since I am spending most of the time in Columbus these days but my primary residence is still in MI. Anyhow , I would never have requested to have any of my cases moved another RO in Ohio, and did not realize that simply because I change my mailing address it would imply transferring my folders/cases as well. Problem being that the USPS takes forever (several weeks) to forward my stuff I will look into my BVA decision and post an excerpt of it soon. free_spirit_etc: I will post an excerpt of the BVA decision, but it makes very clear that they granted an increase for both the GERD and the "Left Ankle" and also specify the date in which such increase should be effective.. So, it is very clear in all respects. I will post an excerpt soon though.

Hello Folks, Not a long time ago, I started a thread in this forum regarding a recent BVA favorable retropayment decision, but this decision subsquent awarding letter relayed by the Detroit Regional Office missed other important BVA adjudications, deliberations, and decisions regarding other claims pertaining and presented on the appeal: Detroit Regional Office simply missed or ignored the BVA decisions regarding the GERD and "Left Ankle" rating increases In order to address the clear-cut fact that some of the BVA decisions were amiss on the RO awarding letter, I sent few messages and to the Detroit Regional Office which simply went on without any response for over two months, which then let me in a limbo of administrative disgrace and chronic incompetence purported by an entity whose goal is to dodge past cases that reflect an abbherration of incompetence on its part concomitant with the practice of deliberately ignoring any case that is beyond the bare trivial. Altogether, the mainstay herein is that the RO observed and obliged with the BVA deliberation and decision to grant me retropayment for the IU Early Effective Date appeal, but then simply ignored the BVA's deliberation and decision to grant me increases for my GERD and “Left Ankle” conditions: GERD from 10% to 30%, “Left Ankle” from 10% to 20%. Thus the RO did not observe, did not oblige, and did not comply with the BVA's clear-cut deliberation and decisio to increase ones rating for the GERD and the "Left Ankle" conditions under appeal. One should note that the BVA is a higher adjudicating entity (and a real court of law), thus the RO has to comply with its final decision and not tamper with it or request another C&P for an already decided matter at the BVA level. Below is a concise message that I sent to the RO explaining the matter at hand: “ On occasion of my last, the Detroit Regional Office made a determination which, whilst satisfactory in other respects (granted the IO retroactive payment), completely ignored the remaining portions of the BVA decision regarding one's appeal and BVA's remaining decisions regarding such appeals. Please, note that the BVA made a clear cut, object, and explicit decision regarding my GERD and "Left Ankle" conditions that the Detroit Regional Office simply failed to read, skimp reading it, or choose not to read the whole paragraph or sentences pertaining the totality of the BVA decisions. So, the question is: Do one really need to send all the pertaining documents issued directly by the BVA along with any other ancillary document to my Congressman's Office, thus exposing this non-sense situation that is more than another simple lapse from the RO? Or, could the RO simply rectify this failure originated from the RO's inability to read very clear, objective, and concise BVA deliberations concerning my case before issuing the Awarding Letter for my last appeal? And for one having to wait for yet another "claim" simply because the RO failed to read clear-objective BVAs statements and deliberations concerning my appeals previous to issuing the Decision and Awarding Letter is utterly absurd to say the least. “ In order to raise awareness about this issue sometime ago (1 month ago) I went to county representative (the county rep. who has my power of attorney -- thus he can see things that I can not see -- and he also can back me on the dating of the material and claim sent, etc) in the hope that even though the RO simply did not answer the IRIS message regarding these issues that it would address the issue without further steps once I had followed the formal channels. But then, it only made matters worse: first off, they transfer my case to a different RO office (from Detroit, MI, to Cleaveland, OH) which then requested a C&P exam for well established BVA deliberation, determination, and decision regarding my past appeals that have been fully adjudicated and decided at the BVA level. Any inputs about how to approach this situation would be appreciated. Thanks

Gastone: yep, I got the tax exemption in MI where I have residence; but I will soon move to the State of Ohio (where recently legislation granted the same type of exemption for TDIU veterans). Currently, I exempted of property taxes (but still have to pay some assessments), and the good thing is that I received a nice check (around $1200) referent to last year taxes that I paid. I got my TDIU at the end of 2013 (but it covered most of year 2013, thus I got most of my 2013 taxes refunded). Good to hear that the DRO sorted out your case in a proper way in your favor. In a delayed response to your IU question: I got TDIU as a result of mental health issues which then are associated with my chronic pain. The job I last performed would not qualify me for TDIU as a result of my physical issues, given that such job was mostly a sedentary one (desk job).