Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

VA Disability Claims Articles

Ask Your VA Claims Question | Current Forum Posts Search | Rules | View All Forums
VA Disability Articles | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users

Theblaze

Third Class Petty Officers
  • Posts

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Theblaze

  1. There are major and minor ratings for upper extremity radiculopathies. Are you saying that lower extremity radiculopathies are rated the same way? I don't see that in the rating schedule. Here is what I see for sciatica: Rating Sciatic nerve 8520 Paralysis of: Complete; the foot dangles and drops, no active movement possible of muscles below the knee, flexion of knee weakened or (very rarely) lost 80 Incomplete: Severe, with marked muscular atrophy 60 Moderately severe 40 Moderate 20 Mild 10 No distinction is made for major/minor.
  2. Agree 100% I was SC for tinnitus even though my exit hearing test was better than my entrance hearing test. Tinnitus is what it is, ringing in the ears. And it can be completely independent of actual hearing loss.
  3. CBaker, I am very curious to hear how the GI Bill helped you to pay for an IMO. Can you elaborate on that for us? I have GI Bill $$$ that I will never use and it would be wonderful if I could redirect it into something useful. Thanks! (Now that I think about it, I think what you probably did was use the BAH money they pay you while you are attending school)
  4. Carlie, do you remember about how long it took to get a SOC from the R.O. when you elected to go to the BVA and filed the Form 9? The answer to that is important to us right now as we are trying to decide just how to get our new evidence looked at in the soonest way. Our new evidence is our best evidence and we don't want to wait 2-3 years for a DRO to say neigh (or yea).. We'd rather get their eyes on it right now for better or worse so we can get on to the BVA if need be. I'm confident that the BVA will award, though I hate to be confident!
  5. Great story Berta, thanks for sharing! If a person elects to go to the BVA and skip the DRO de novo process, how long does it usually take for the R.O. to generate the SOC? I am thinking it is fairly quickly, in fact I am counting on that so we can get eyes on some new evidence sooner rather than years later. If they don't craft the SOC quickly, my plan may be a bad one.
  6. Thanks for the reply! We did file the NOD 2 weeks ago asking for a DRO review. Our biggest issue is that we do not want to wait 2-3 years for the DRO to do the review of our new evidence. It almost looks like having our cake and eating it to if we file a Form 9 and go straight to the BVA. That gets us in line for a thorough look at the case, PLUS "forces" a look at the new evidence by the local R.O. RIGHT NOW since they have to write up a SOC explaining why all our evidence is not sufficient to grant the increase. And they just might grant the increase after seeing the new evidence. If not, they probably would not have granted it after a 2-3 year wait either. Am I missing something important here? Because this just seems like a great way to proceed.
  7. My wife had a claim for increase denied in August 2013. We were planning to get a new DBQ filled out and file a FDC, but the DBQ took longer than we thought it would and now there is no time to get an FDC done before August 2014 when the one-year appeal window closes. Instead of filing for a DRO review and waiting 2-3 years for them to look at the DBQ, we are thinking of going straight to the BVA because this will make the local R.O. look at the DBQ now when the write the SOC. Is this a good way to get something looked at in a timely fashion? Plus, if the new DBQ isn't enough to grant the increase now, it for sure won't be enough to grant it in 2-3 years. We are just trying to get VA eyes on our DBQ now and avoid waiting years. Is this a good way to do it? Thanks!
  8. Wow Berta, thanks for the great information in your post and I am glad that you eventually prevailed, I know that your road was a long and hard one! While I understand what a NOD does for you and that there is a one-year window to file it, it seems in some situations that it can be handled differently. For example, in the situation I am assisting with, the original decision was filed in Apr 2012, decided in Aug 2013. Evidence favorable to her exists throughout 2011-2013. Favorable DBQ (new and material) will be sent in with a FDC reconsideration in Feb 2014. Traditional advice is that if the reconsideration is not decided come Aug 2014 we will need to file the NOD. But why? According to 3.400 (q), if new and material evidence is received it is as if the previous decision had not been rendered. Say the reconsideration decision comes in Sept 2014 and denies the increase plus we did not file the NOD by the Aug 2014 deadline. If we file a NOD on the reconsideration, it seems we are still good because as part of the reconsideration new and material evidence was provided that gives us standing for an effective date to the beginning, if evidence supports that. I'm just not seeing the importance of meeting the first NOD deadline if N&M has been provided in the appeal window. But I may be misunderstanding part or all of this...
  9. Veteran is 10% for lumbar strain. VA decision in Aug 2013 denied increase. There are numerous doctor exam reports from 2011-2013 that show limited ROMs that were apparently not considered useful because the decision to continue the 10% used the C&P exam exclusively which did not show limited ROM. We now have a DBQ from her doctor that documents the limited ROM problem. If used by a rater, this would dictate an increase. Question: Since we are within the one year appeal window, why would we pursue a NOD for this versus filing a reconsideration? The NOD will take much longer than an FDC and, if an increase is granted, an effective date prior to the claim file date is possible due to "new and material" evidence having been sent in prior to the one year anniversary of the original decision. (Would be nice if someone considered the other documentation of limited ROM as worthy so retro was possible). 3.400 (q) New and material evidence (3.156) other than service department records -- (1) Received within appeal period or prior to appellate decision. The effective date will be as though the former decision had not been rendered.
  10. Well, this is a "reconsideration" within one year of a decision - denial. We want to file an FDC and hope it is done prior to August which is one year after the denial was done. Anything that would slow it down we want to avoid Tempted to just file for lumbar strain and let it go at that so it is a 1-issue FDC - which will hopefully go fast. The DBQ and medical evidence we have (and will send in) has the sciatica and the DDD, so maybe they will infer those. Just leaning towards a claim that goes as fast as humanly possible. A fast claim with the VA, that's funny right there!
  11. Veteran is SC 10% for lumbar strain. Previously denied SC for sciatica due to "no current diagnosis". If she files an FDC for lumbar strain and supplies a DBQ that includes diagnoses of sciatica as well as lumbar DDD (from MRI), how would it be handled? Will they infer a sciatica claim? Might they change the SC condition from lumbar strain to DDD? I ask because we want to file a simple 1 issue FDC in the hopes that it will be handled quickly. Don't really want to file for lumbar strain and sciatica and DDD and make it look more complicated. Thanks!
  12. Thanks everyone for the excellent information! I understand now, thanks!
  13. T8r Bingo! Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for! Based on that wording however, I'm not so sure that it is not allowed in my situation. I mean, my DRO NOD is at St Pete. My FDC would be filed at St Pete. It seems that my claims folder should be at St Pete too and therefore the second part of that requirement after the word and (that they underlined in the FAST letter) would not be met. The claimant has an appeal pending at the time of receipt of the EZ form and the claims folder is not located at the home RO Seems like it would apply though if you had an appeal at the BVA AND your c-file was in D.C. meghp0405, I respect your opinion, can you elaborate on why you say that?
  14. I think their stats are accurate and they are making headway, but there is still a huge backlog and long waits and unhappy vets. None of that will change anytime soon.
  15. Thanks for the reply. That is what I have heard as well, but I can't seem to find anything in writing on it. Even the FDC form which contains a lot of information does not say that you can't file a FDC if you have an appeal in the system.
  16. I filed a NOD with the local VARO in 2012 and I think it is going to be a while before it is decided. In the meantime, I'd like to file a FDC claim. Can I file the FDC with a NOD in the system, or is a pending appeal one of those things that makes a FDC a no-go? Thanks
  17. Congrats! And thanks for posting the letter, interesting reading!
  18. Congratulations FullTime and thanks for the great write-up! Can you elaborate more on the " small "spot" on my brain which was picked up on a cat scan."? What did that turn out to be? Thanks
  19. Actually the table rounds every combination that is not a whole number at every step of the way and you showed it with your example. Combining 75% with 30% the table shows 83%, but wait, strictly mathematically it is 82.5% so what happened there? The answer: the table rounded that to 83%. The table, which is the official way to combine these ratings, rounds at every step of the process if the number is not a whole number. And then the human must do the big rounding (to the nearest 10%) at the end. This is why a calculator that does not do this will not mirror the table and is wrong.
  20. Glad I could help. This thread drifted a bit, but congratulations again Buzz!
  21. I don't understand. Do you disagree with the eCFR?
  22. I have no idea what the VA uses, except that I know that their calculations agree with the chart on the eCFR and anything that does different is incorrect. The spreadsheet was made my an overachieving veteran on another VA claims board that I will not mention because I'm not sure if that is frowned upon here. The beauty of the spreadsheet is that is calculates combined ratings correctly including bilaterals. And it always agrees with the chart on the eCFR. Many (most, or all?) other calculators do not provide correct information. Many examples can be made to show why rounding after every step is required. The current one will suffice though. Run 50,50,30,30,20,20,20,10 % through the eCFR chart and you will get 95% Do it mathematically without rounding [(0.5 X 0.5 X 0.7 X 0.7 X 0.8 X 0.8 X 0.8 X 0.9) - 1] and you get 94.3552% which rounds to 90%. Round after each step on the math though and you get the correct answer that agrees with the eCFR chart. This is very important stuff because way too many people are calculating these ratings incorrectly and consequently providing bad advice and there really is no reason for it. Correctly understood it is easily done, or use the eCFR spreadsheet, or the calculator.
  23. Negative Ghost Rider. The only official way to combine ratings is in accordance with the Combined Ratings Table which can be found on the eCFR here: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=36c3624febb104520f9817c61b3df4db&rgn=div5&view=text&node=38:1.0.1.1.5&idno=38 If you use that table you will find that 50,50,30,30,20,20,20,10 % combines to 95% which rounds to 100% for VA purposes. The error that is commonly made (and that you are making) is when you do it mathematically you must round after each operation to a whole number before proceeding further. If you do not do this, you will end up with small errors, which in this case make a big difference. If you do that rounding properly, even the mathematical way will give 95%. The other way to do it is to simply use the table and that also gives 95% as the result. And yet another way is to use a calculator that actually does it the right way and one can be found here: http://lasestrellas.info/VBN/Hutsky-Star3.xls I've attached a copy of this calculator with these ratings plugged into it. Other calculators that I have seen do not do the rounding and give incorrect results sometimes. There is no error, this is a legit 95% and that means 100% Congrats!!!!!!!! Hope this helps.
  24. Well, it depends. 40% could be anywhere from 35% to 44% and still be considered 40%. The new 10% will be combined with your actual percentages, not 40% Depending on your actual % you may bump to 50% or not. As far as an appeal is concerned, if you feel that you were not rated properly, I would appeal.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use