Jump to content
  • Searches Community Forums, Blog and more

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'cavc remand'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General VA Disability Compensation Benefits Claims Forums
    • VA Disability Compensation Benefits Claims Research Forum
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Exposed Vet/HadIt.com Podcast
    • Denial Letters
    • Appealing Your Veterans Compensation Disability Claims NOD, DRO, BVA, USCAVC
    • Veterans Compensation & Pension Exams
    • PTSD Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Claims
    • Success Stories
    • TDIU Unemployability Claims
    • E-Benefits Questions
    • Entitlement - Veterans Compensation Benefits Claims
    • Eligibility - Veterans Compensation Benefit Claims
    • SMC Special Monthly Compensation
    • CUE Clear and Unmistakable Error
    • Medication – Prescription Drugs-Health Issues
    • Agent Orange
    • TBI Traumatic Brain Injury
    • MST - Military Sexual Trauma
    • Social Security Disability Questions
    • Vocational Rehabilitation
    • VA Disability Claims Articles and VA News
    • Federal Register Announcements
    • Appeals Modernization Act AMA
    • RAMP Rapid Appeals Modernization Program
    • CHAMPVA
    • OEF/OIF Veterans
    • VA Caregiver Benefits for Post 9/11 Veterans or active duty On or Before May 7, 1975
    • IMO Independent Medical Opinion
    • Veterans Benefits State & Federal
    • VA Medical Centers Navigating through it
    • VA Training & Fast letters, Directives, Regulations, Other Guidance Documents
    • MEB/PEB Physical OR Medical Evaluation Forum
    • VA Regional Offices
  • VA Claims References
  • Specialized Claims
    • Mefloquine / Lariam
    • Gulf War Illness
    • ALS - Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
    • Radiation Exposure from Operation Tomodachi (Japan Earthquake Fukushima Nuclear Assistant)
    • Project SHAD/Project 112
    • VA Pensions
    • DIC
    • FTCA Federal Tort Claims Action
    • 1151 Claims
  • Extras
    • Hiring an Attorney Discussions on S. 3421
    • Coronavirus - COVID-19
    • VA Scandals
    • Discounts for Veterans
    • Title 38 / 38 CFR
    • 38 CFR 3 Adjudication
    • 38 CFR 4 Schedule for Rating Disabilities
    • Active Duty MEB/PEB Physical OR Medical Evaluation Forum
  • Social Chat
  • Veterans Social Chat's Social
  • Veterans Social Chat's Topics

Categories

  • Articles
    • VA Claims
    • Orphan Articles

Product Groups

  • Subscriptions
  • Advertisement

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


GooglePlus


Military Rank


Location


Interests


Service Connected Disability


Branch of Service


Residence


Hobby

  1. I have posted the cavc set a side order. This the bva decision after the remand. Now the bva has only address the period from when I apply for smc. I got denied housebound by fact for the same reason as Howell v Nicholson. Because I was able to travel to medical appointments. Smh Guess the bva judge never read Howell v Nicholson. Not one piece of my evidence before 2018 was even address in this bva decision. Then the crazy part in the history they just run my disability together. They never address that the buffalo ny regional never cretifed my appeal in 1993. The court allow the the va to stage rate me from 1993-2001 20% for neck. 20%elbow/hand. I was give extra schedulers tdiu from 1993-2001. Because I was granted tdiu 2001 based on the neck 60%pt. And have never work since service. all done to not address my smc in the proper light. Well the last thing they remove this issue from the cavc remand docket and legacy appeal system. An put me in the new ama system I never opt in. Now I get a decision on my cavc remand tell me I can request a supplement review. And I have a new 2021 docket number for a appeal that start 2018. Well I will win the smc s they just kill there self by denied it because I can go to doctor appointments. I will win the effective dates once the court address there errors. Guys confine to one home is not been able to leave your home to make a income. That the law under Howell v Nicholson.
  2. Ok here it is and I can't believe this Ok let start with do u see that nothing is address before 2018. We understand smc Is effective by the record and granted by the record. Ok. The court set a side the effective dates an explain to the va to address early time period. Not done because they change the court remand order to granted effective dates in first instance. So now I am back at the court to appeal the same effective dates the court set a side. Ok. I apply for smc s under Howell v Nicholson. It is never address I even got denied because I can travel medical appointments. The same reason Howell was denied smh. Last I had a judge remand the cavc. That a different judge remand it again. Than a different judge just made the decision. All in six months I guess the judge who was handling the remand st first retire than the one who remand again retir. Because this is the only way you have 3 different judges on a cavc remand. Ain't no 2 bva judge's retire In.6 months of handling my cavc remand. Here the decision I will.ein st the court just made.they are playing all these games.
  3. Ok so I go to to a look an see if my cavc remand for smc o and r had been return to the board. And I find this for my effective dates for smc s and l. Smh. They change one month smc s to s smc l award. I look and it a 370.00 retro check now I might be wrong but the difference between smc s and l in 2018 was not 370. Smh. Than I see this. Ok how do u ask for a supplement review on a cavc remand. They are just doing anything to not say they mess up processing a cavc remand. Now I got beef to get this decision. Shit I aint even got the ssoc that was done nov14 in the mail yet. The Veterans Benefits Administration corrected an error On November 23, 2021, a judge at the Board of Veterans’ Appeals made a decision that changes your disability rating or eligibility for benefits. On November 29, 2021, the Veterans Benefits Administration sent you a new decision that updates your benefits. If you disagree with either the Board decision or the Veterans Benefits Administration decision, you can request another review. The review options available to you depend on which decision you disagree with. This appeal is now closed What if I disagree with the November 23, 2021 decision? If you disagree with VA’s decision, you can choose one of the following review options to continue your case: Add new and relevant evidence A reviewer will determine whether the new evidence changes the decision. This option is called a Supplemental Claim. Available until November 23, 2022. Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims The court will review the Board’s decision. You can hire an attorney to represent you, or you may represent yourself. Available until March 23, 2022. Not available for this decision Ask for a new look from a senior reviewer (Higher-Level Review) Appeal to a Veterans Law Judge (Board Appeal) Your decision has information on additional ways you and/or your representative can address errors. Learn more about your decision review options. What if I disagree with the November 29, 2021 decision? If you disagree with VA’s decision, you can choose one of the following review options to continue your case: Add new and relevant evidence A reviewer will determine whether the new evidence changes the decision. This option is called a Supplemental Claim. Available until November 29, 2022. Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims The court will review the Board’s decision. You can hire an attorney to represent you, or you may represent yourself. Available until March 29, 2022. Not available for this decision Ask for a new look from a senior reviewer (Higher-Level Review) Appeal to a Veterans Law Judge (Board Appeal) Your decision has information on additional ways you and/or your representative can address errors.
  4. Ok so just now the va put in there response to the court on my petition. And just like I thought they are saying they made decision on my appeals once again. Never addressing the change of my docket numbers. Which the court order them to address. Here is the insert from the decision if you notice it doesn't state this is a remand from the cavc. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2021 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). That rating decision effectuated a January 2020 Board decision that granted entitlement to special monthly compensation based on housebound criteria and aid and attendance criteria being met and assigned the respective effective dates. On his VA Form 10182, the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the May 2021 rating decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Effective Date of Special Monthly Compensation (SMC) The Veteran contends that he is entitled to special monthly compensation prior to May 9, 2018. In this case, effective May 9, 2018, the Veteran was awarded SMC under 38 U.S.C. § 1114, subsection (s) based on statutory housebound requirements being satisfied. Effective July 17, 2018, the Veteran was awarded SMC on the basis of aid and attendance under 38 U.S.C. § 1114, subsection (l). well I am just get ready to appeal to the court again because I believe the court is about to let this all stand. and dismiss my petition in the next week or two. think I might start the appeal to the court Friday I am try to wait on the last decision but the way I see it I will not get it until the 120 days to appeal these decision is almost over. smh this make no sense.
  5. Ok so I need a few opinions on this. 38 CFR § 3.340 - Total and permanent total ratings and unemployability § 3.340 Total and permanent total ratings and unemployability. (a) Total disability ratings - (1) General. Total disability will be considered to exist when there is present any impairment of mind or body which is sufficient to render it impossible for the average person to follow a substantially gainful occupation. Total disability may or may not be permanent. Total ratings will not be assigned, generally, for temporary exacerbations or acute infectious diseases except where specifically prescribed by the schedule. (2) Schedule for rating disabilities. Total ratings are authorized for any disability or combination of disabilities for which the Schedule for Rating Disabilities prescribes a 100 percent evaluation or, with less disability, where the requirements of paragraph 16, page 5 of the rating schedule are present or where, in pension cases, the requirements of paragraph 17, page 5 of the schedule are met. (3) Ratings of total disability on history. In the case of disabilities which have undergone some recent improvement, a rating of total disability may be made, provided: (i) That the disability must in the past have been of sufficient severity to warrant a total disability rating; (ii) That it must have required extended, continuous, or intermittent hospitalization, or have produced total industrial incapacity for at least 1 year, or be subject to recurring, severe, frequent, or prolonged exacerbations; and (iii) That it must be the opinion of the rating agency that despite the recent improvement of the physical condition, the veteran will be unable to effect an adjustment into a substantially gainful occupation. Due consideration will be given to the frequency and duration of totally incapacitating exacerbations since incurrence of the original disease or injury, and to periods of hospitalization for treatment in determining whether the average person could have reestablished himself or herself in a substantially gainful occupation. (b) Permanent total disability. Permanence of total disability will be taken to exist when such impairment is reasonably certain to continue throughout the life of the disabled person. The permanent loss or loss of use of both hands, or of both feet, or of one hand and one foot, or of the sight of both eyes, or becoming permanently helpless or bedridden constitutes permanent total disability. Diseases and injuries of long standing which are actually totally incapacitating will be regarded as permanently and totally disabling when the probability of permanent improvement under treatment is remote. Permanent total disability ratings may not be granted as a result of any incapacity from acute infectious disease, accident, or injury, unless there is present one of the recognized combinations or permanent loss of use of extremities or sight, or the person is in the strict sense permanently helpless or bedridden, or when it is reasonably certain that a subsidence of the acute or temporary symptoms will be followed by irreducible totality of disability by way of residuals. The age of the disabled person may be considered in determining permanence. Ok here my thing part b. To get a PT rating u must have one of these conditions. Loss of use hand etc. So if veterans get a PT rating they should be getting loss of use under smc benfits by this Now in my case they keep make me apply for loss of use. When I been out over Pt 26 years. Am I reading this wrong.
  6. Well I think I will be going back to the Court. Like I said one issue they remove from the cavc remand. And put in the new appeal system It say I can ask for a supplement review. The effective dates smc s and l. One say granted one denied. I am going to take it that I was granted the same effective dates I appeal to court. Smh. The adjustment disorder was denied a total rating even after changing my tdiu to the adjustment disorder. It total for tdiu but they don't want to rated it total. Well this issue which also was part of the cavc remand. It state I have a 120 day to appeal to court. Well the smc o and r remand also by the court is waiting to be return to judge. So like I said I will now have three appeal to the court for a cavc remand. I am happy tho I am getting this out of the bva hands and they were not able to play me. With the change of the one issue docket and telling me I was 100000 in line. The fight continues. Oh I no my petition will be denied now It was like the court gave the bva 10 days to make a decision. This was quick. Well I still have to wait on the bva decision for the smc r and o. It should be coming before the 120 days. This is the only issue that's still under the cavc remand docket. I am about to call to see if I can find out what the granted thing is. On the effective dates for smc s and l. I am like a 100% sure they are acting like they granted the same effective dates I appeal to the court smh
  7. Man so I am looking at the granted for the 70% for adjustment disorder. I forgot I use my service records to reopen this. Is the effective date the date of the services records. It was denied in 2001. But my case go back to 1993 service because the va never cretifed my appeal to the board back then.
  8. Well today the fight is over to get all my cavc remand issue return to the bva judge. This has been a six month fight. The only thing mess with me they still have them listed as three different appeal. But I am not about to start a new fight. For this. And I still have the petition at the court maybe they will order them to get it right. I just want a bva decision they can denied it or granted it. It been a 4 year roll coaster for smc benfits.
  9. Boy the va is really try to do my smc benfits claim all type of way. Ok on one page you tell me my case is been return to board. 30 day. I send a waiver of time. Ok then I look more and there is a page saying I can opt out of legacy to the new appeal system. If I disagree. Now this is were they get veterans if you opt in you get a new docket number remove it from the cavc remand docket. Smh this must be there new practice because why would I opt in and my case is to be return to the judge. Guys watch out. This crazy
  10. Well today I look on ebenfits and the effective dates for smc s and l have change to been reviewed by a judge now. The mmd hasnt change yet but I feel it will be next. The board got 6 more day to answer the court. I just hope they get it right this time. Don't feel like I have another court fight in me. Well I am just glad my cavc remand is been return to the judge. 6 month smh Oh and this was the cavc remand issue that was been shop for the last 6 month for a medical opinion. We will see
  11. Ok here is the court order today on my petition. I ain't crazy y'all and my cases will get to move now with just this order. This isn't even the decision in the petition it's self. Man wait tell the judge address the Change of her set a side order. This is big win for me today I can relax now lol. They got 10 days the court is on it now Crazy part both of my cavc cases the petition and the cavc remand are been done by the chief judge. I am so happy today. Many might not understand what the va try to do to me I have a very big cases. And if this wasn't address I would have wait years before my cavc remand would have been return to the bva judge. Here is the chief judge order On July 6, 2021, self-represented veteran filed a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus. Mr. asserts that a writ of mandamus is necessary to compel VA to take action on his claims remanded by the Court in January 2021. Petition at 1; see v. McDonough, No. 20-4110, 2021 WL 485865 (Jan. 29, 2021). Among other things, Mr.asserts that VA has improperly bifurcated the remanded claims by assigning a new docket number to his appeal of the evaluation assigned for his psychiatric disorder and that, as a result, the matter is not being treated expeditiously. Petition at 5-6. In a September 13, 2021, supplemental response, the Secretary explained that the claims were initially bifurcated because, due to administrative error, the psychiatric disorder claim was listed in the tracking system as in a different stage of the adjudication process and, therefore, could not be part of the appeal certified to the Board in a May 2021 VA Form 8. Supplemental Response at 5. As for whether the two appeal streams can be merged now that the error has been corrected, the Secretary included a declaration from the Board's Deputy Vice Chairman explaining that "[l]egacy appeal records can only be merged by the Board if they are actively assigned to the Board . . . at the same time." Id., Appendix A at 3. The Secretary's explanations address the question of why Mr. psychiatric disorder claim was—and remains—bifurcated from the others remanded by the Court in January 2021. However, it is unresponsive to Mr. assertion that, by assigning a 2021 docket number, his appeal of that issue is not being treated expeditiously as it should be under 38 U.S.C. § 7112. Compare id., Appendix B, Exhibit M (showing that Mr. psychiatric disorder appeal is categorized as "Original" and assigned docket number 2100585), with id., Exhibit AA (showing that Mr. increased SMC appeal is categorized as a "Court Remand" and assigned docket number 1909416). The Secretary asserts that the psychiatric disorder claim "will be considered 2 according to its place on the docket," id. at 14, but has not explained what that place is or whether it reflects expeditious treatment based on the Court's January 2021 remand. Furthermore, Mr. asserts that all of these matters, both the psychiatric claims and the SMC issues, were advanced on the docket when they were first before the Board, but that postremand they are no longer in that status. See Petition at 1. The Secretary asserts that Mr. has been notified how he can request that his appeals again be advanced on the docket, Supplemental Response at 5, but has not explained why, if VA had previously determined that advancement was warranted, the appeals did not remain in that status following the Court's remand. Consequently, the Court requires additional information from the Secretary. See U.S. VET. APP. R. 21(d). Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Secretary, within 10 days after the date of this order, file a supplemental response to the petition, addressing the specific allegations that Mr. psychiatric disorder appeal is not being handled expeditiously and that none of his appeals have been advanced on the Board's docket. The Secretary should provide any documentation pertinent to the Court's resolution of this matter. DATED: November 4, 2021 BY THE COURT:
  12. ? I been looking into this but can't seem to find. We're do you send the petition the board or the us court.
  13. Ok I got the court to have the va give a response to the petition. ? Mariano v. Principi, 17 Vet.App. 305, 312 (2003) (Court noted that it would not be permissible for VA to undertake further development if purpose was to obtain evidence against appellant’s case) Might also look at: Adams v. Principi, 256 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2001), (in which the court stated that it would be improper for the Veterans Court to remand a case to the Board to give the DVA another opportunity to develop evidence needed to satisfy an evidentiary burden it had failed to satisfy the first time, i.e., to “attempt to introduce new evidence sufficient to make up the shortfall” in the agency’s proof. Id. at 1322.” So i take this to mean after a cavc remand the bva isn't to remand to ro for a second development. Am I reading this wrong.
  14. I cant redacted the whole 167 page so I am just point out a few things. So that veterans are aware of va word play and bullshit lol. I am Deputy Vice Chairman of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) directing the Secretary to file a response to the July 6, 2021 petition. 3. On January 29, 2021, the Court issued a memorandum decision under docket number 20-4110 which reversed a January 30, 2020 Board decision to the extent the Board found Petitioner’s October 2018 [sic] notice of disagreement (NOD) did not encompass the portion of a July 5, 2018 rating decision granting a 70 percent evaluation, but no higher, for a psychiatric disorder. The Court remanded the issue of entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 70 percent for a psychiatric disorder for further adjudication The Court also set aside and remanded the portion of the Board decision that denied entitlement to higher levels of, and earlier effective dates for, special monthly compensation (SMC). Judgment was issued on February 22, 2021, and an expedited Mandate was issued on February 26, 2021. See Exhibit A. 4. On March 22, 2021, the Board notified Petitioner his appeal had been received by the Board. Due to administrative error, the Board’s letter indicated the Court’s decision was issued on February 22, 2021. Petitioner was notified he had 90 days from the date of the letter to submit additional evidence or argument, and that he could waive the remainder of that 90-day period by completing and returning the attached waiver. See Exhibit B. 5. On March 31, 2021, the Board received a faxed submission from Petitioner including a signed waiver form, as well as a written statement. See Exhibit C. 6. An April 12, 2021 Report of Contact documented a telephone call with the Board’s Office of Litigation & Customer Support and Petitioner in which Petitioner asked to confirm the 90-day waiver had been received. Petitioner also provided 1170. See Exhibit D. 7. On April 12, 2021, the post-Court appeal was moved out of the Office of Litigation & Customer Support, and on April 14, 2021 it was assigned to a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) team for review. See Exhibit E. 8. A May 3, 2021 Board decision remanded the issues of entitlement to an earlier effective date for SMC housebound, entitlement to an earlier effective date for SMC based on the need for aid and attendance, and a higher SMC rate. The Board found that per the Court’s memorandum decision, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) should assign effective dates in the first instance. See this is where things start the board can't change a court order and just do what the want. The court never remand my effective to be granted in the first instance. Now they are and never were address. and found a higher SMC rate was intertwined with the remanded effective dates for the assigned SMC ratings. The court never stated this. There try to lie to court. The Board also remanded the issue of an initial rating in excess of 70 percent for adjustment disorder with depressed mood for the AOJ to issue a statement of the case (SOC), as the Court had found a timely NOD had been filed for this issue. See Exhibit F. On May 12, 2021, Petitioner was notified of a May 12, 2021 SOC which denied an initial evaluation of greater than 70 percent for adjustment disorder with depressed mood. Petitioner was notified he had to file a formal appeal via a VA Form 9, Appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, to complete his appeal as to that issue. See Exhibit G. When have you ever heard that you have to do a new form 9 are a cavc remand. The Court didn't order this. Done to make me start over the appeal process and not return to front of line. Guy look at your court remand the va will play these games. And have you waiting years The AOJ created a separate record in VACOLS for the legacy appeal for an increased initial rating for adjustment disorder with depressed mood, reflecting the relevant procedural dates for that appeal of the August 2018 NOD, May 2021 SOC, and May 2021 VA Form 9. Due to administrative error, the AOJ did not certify or send the record for this appeal stream to the Board in VACOLS at the time the May 2021 VA Form 8 and notice letter were completed. See Exhibit M. Legacy appeal records can only be merged by the Board if they are actively assigned to the Board in VACOLS at the same time. Ok so they seen there error an still didn't fix it. June 2, 2021 Board letter notified Petitioner his appeal, which had previously been remanded, was returned to the Board and resumed its place on the Board’s docket. See Exhibit P. Never done lol Upon notification of the July 6, 2021 petition, the Board’s Office of Litigation & Customer Support became aware of the May 2021 VA Form 8 in the claims file and administrative error in VACOLS, and worked with the appropriate VA offices to have the appeal record for an increased initial rating for adjustment disorder with depressed mood certified and sent to the Board in VACOLS. See Exhibit M (previously cited in number 16) Still never return to front of line nothing. A July 23, 2021 Board letter notified Petitioner his appeal has been placed on the Board’s docket. Petitioner was notified how he could request the appeal be advanced on the Board’s docket. See Exhibit. Ok so now I got to request for a cavc remand to be expidate on docket What happened to the law the cavc remand are to be return to front of line. Ok there more. Ok now my effective dates for smc l and s. On July 26, 2021, a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), was received, signed by Petitioner. In box 11A, Petitioner selected the Board Review Option for Direct Review by a VLJ. In Box 12A, Petitioner indicated the issues he seeks to appeal include “SMC S effective date[]” and “SMC L effective date[].” In box 12B, the date of the decision for these issues was listed as May 26, 2021. See Exhibit W. 26. A July 30, 2021 Board letter notified Petitioner that his July 26, 2021 VA Form 10182 could not be accepted. See Exhibit X. 27. A July 30, 2021 Board letter notified Petitioner his VA Form 10182 had been received, and his appeal had been placed on the Board’s Direct Review docket. Petitioner was notified how he could request the appeal be advanced on the Board’s docket. See Exhibit Y. Once again treating it as a new appeal 28. An August 6, 2021 Board letter notified Petitioner that the July 30, 2021 letter indicating the VA Form 10182 could not be accepted was the result of administrative error, and confirmed the appeal based on the July 26, 2021 VA Form 10182 is currently pending on the Board’s Direct Review docket. See Exhibit Z. 29. A printout of the VACOLS record shows the Court Remand legacy appeal under docket number 19-09 416 for a higher level of SMC remains under the jurisdiction of the AOJ following the Board’s June 29, 2021 remand. See Exhibit AA. 30. A printout of the VACOLS record shows the legacy appeal for an increased initial rating for adjustment disorder with depressed mood has been assigned docket number 21-00 585 and is awaiting assignment to a VLJ. See Exhibit M (previously cited in number 14). The Board, as required by law, will consider the appeal according to its place on the docket. Do you see anything saying this is a cavc remand and how they are to be treated. Lol 31. A printout of the Caseflow record shows that the modernized appeal based on the July 26, 2021 VA Form 10182 has been assigned docket number 210726-175126 and is awaiting assignment to a VLJ. See Exhibit BB. After all that my effective dates are been treated as a new appeal in a new system. Maybe this will help ppl understand what is legal and not. I wait for the judge to rule in my petition. Learn the laws also if it a bva remand to ro. Understand how they are to be handle. If it a cavc remand to bva understand there are law in how they are to be handle. The board can't change the court remand order. And after a cavc remand you never have to start over the whole appeal process.
  15. Man I am really sit here try to figure this one out. Ok here is the cavc remand. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the portion of the January 30, 2020, Board decision finding that Mr. October 2018 NOD did not encompass that portion of the July 5, 2018, rating decision granting a 70% evaluation, but no higher, for a psychiatric disorder is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED for further adjudication; the portions of the January 30, 2020, Board decision denying an effective date before May 9, 2018, for the grant of SMC and entitlement to SMC in excess of the housebound rate, from May 9 to July 17, 2018, and at the aid-and- attendance rate from that point are SET ASIDE and the matters are REMANDED for further development, if necessary, and readjudication consistent with this decision; and the balance of the appeal is DISMISSED. DATED: January 29, 2021 Ok now the board change the cavc order and granted the same effective dates set a side by the court. An remand them To be granted in the first instance. So the board volate the court order. The cavc set them a side an told the board to address early period. So now the droc DC just used the nod that was send to me to continue my appeal. An remove the issue from the cavc remand docket which is to be expidate and return to the board. An now it's in the new appeal system I never check the box to opt in. Smh. An now been treated as a new appeal with a docket of 2021. In the new appeal system This is part of my petition for extraordinary relief. The Board response to the court. They it ok to change my docket. Lol that was it. Told the court that the board found that they need to be granted in the first instance. So now I guess the board doesn't have to follow cavc remand order now. Smh It's been with judge almost 7 weeks. And it with the chief judge the same judge who did my case an set it a side. And the judge was part of the grove cavc decision. I even ask the court to sanction the veterans affairs for this. I can't let this go because I didn't fight all the way to court. To fight the same effective dates over again. Lol I am venting again.
  16. Now here is another example of the bva try to delay and develop evidence to denied. After a cavc remand. Ok I have a claim for smc r higher level in home care. Now I denied get a bva decision on that and see how it say higher level smc. So now I will not get a decision for smc r until my case is send back to the board. This is crazy. Now smc and increase rating are two different thing. Smc is Based on the record and effective by the record. Well my only hope to get pass all these delays is my petition. My petition was expidate by court due to my need of in home care. And the cavc case that remand it the bva. Do u see how the judge stated that my effective date for smc. Are downstream issue. And I have not disagree so the board doesn't have jurdation. How is a cavc remand issue a downstream issue. Lol See when u do the nod now you will get a new docket number. U will not have the cavc remand docket which is to be expidate. This is how the bva and ro hold cavc remands. And there no longer in the system as a cavc remand. Not legal. If I had not done the petition or understood. I would have been waiting years for them to address this. I am venting again. Oh and I did denied the exam. These qtc ppl are crazy. They will not tell me when it will be send back. So now a outside company has add months to the claim process because they don't return exam or claims back to ro. Smh now I got to fight qtc to return my issue back to ro
  17. I think I need to break this down so others become aware of these error which I look as been done on purpose to veterans. Ok here is the court remand order. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the portion of the January 30, 2020, Board decision finding that October 2018 NOD did not encompass that portion of the July 5, 2018, rating decision granting a 70% evaluation, but no higher, for a psychiatric disorder is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED for further adjudication; the portions of the January 30, 2020, Board decision denying an effective date before May 9, 2018, for the grant of SMC and entitlement to SMC in excess of the housebound rate, from May 9 to July 17, 2018, and at the aid-and- attendance rate from that point are SET ASIDE and the matters are REMANDED for further development, if necessary, and readjudication consistent with this decision; and the balance of the appeal is DISMISSED. DATED: January 29, 2021 Ok the court reverse the decision that I never appeal the adjustment disorder. They side a side the effective granted January 30 bva decision. So that mean address early time period. Ok here is the bva remand to droc DC. 1. Prepare an SOC in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 19.26 regarding the issue of an initial rating in excess of 70 percent for adjustment disorder with depressed mood. This action is required unless the matters are resolved by granting the benefits sought by the Veteran in full or by the Veteran’s withdrawal of the NOD. If, and only if, the Veteran files a timely substantive appeal should the issue be returned to the Board. 2. Assign appropriate effective date(s) for SMC housebound and SMC based on the need for aid and attendance granted by the January 2020 Board decision. 3. After issuing a rating decision assigning appropriate effective date(s) for SMC housebound and SMC based on the need for aid and attendance, adjudicate the claim of entitlement to a higher SMC rate, including determining whether SMC under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(o) and 38 U.S.C. § 1114(r) is warranted. After issuing a supplemental SOC for this claim, return the case to the Board. Ok now this is were they volate the cavc remand order. 1. I did a va form 9 2018. Ok I had to do one to continue the appeal. Board state return to board. Well the droc has take the new form 9 and made it a new appeal system. I am now 100000 in line. 2. The bva stated on remand Grant the same effective dates the court order them to set a side. Ok I get a decision with same effective. Told I have to do a new nod to continue my appeal. No where does bva remand state do this. It State return to board. Well now the droc has put me in the new ama appeal system. With a new appeal date of July 2021. Never check opt in box. Ok this might be a lot for some but i feel I need to explain it on one thread. This is what my petition for extraordinary relief is based on. I also used the bva 2 remand for loss of use. The court remand smc r and o. But the board is hold it tell me its part of the remand. Here is the bva remand order now let me state this first. This is the only thing that they still have under the cavc remand docket. In this regard, in support of his claim of entitlement to a higher level of SMC, the Veteran has asserted in various correspondence that he has “loss of use” of his left hand and/or arm. However, no examination or opinion has been obtained that specifically addresses whether the Veteran’s left hand/arm disability results in the functional equivalent of loss of use. In this regard, the regulation defining “loss of use” appears to leave the definition open to some interpretation to the extent that it includes an intentionally non-exhaustive list of “example” situations which may reflect loss of use. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.350(a)(2), 4.63. The Court has found that a “loss of use” exists when there is “deprivation of the ability to avail oneself” of that extremity, and functional impairment caused by pain, weakness, or incoordination should be taken into account when making that determination. See Jensen v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 66, 78-79 (2017). The Board is cognizant that the Veteran had a VA examination in July 2019, pursuant to which an examiner found that there was not functional impairment such that no effective function remained other than that which would be equally well served by an amputation with prosthesis. However, there was no rationale or explanation provided for that conclusion and, given the objective findings on examination, the Board finds that one should have been. In this regard, the Veteran. was noted to have severe ulnar neuropathy that limited his fingering, finger handling, feeling, fine motor movements, keyboarding, and work with hands over his head. It was also noted that he could not make a tight fist with the left hand and had weakness with thumb to finger testing of all fingers. Specifically, grip strength on the left was 3/5 and pinch strength was 2/5. Absent a rationale, given the severity of the objective findings and the Veteran’s subjective complaints, the Board is hesitant to rely on the examiner’s conclusion regarding functional impairment. Additionally, the Board notes that more recent VA treatment notes suggest a change in the Veteran’s condition. For example, in March 2021, the Veteran denied weakness in his hands, reported that he was not dropping things, and reported only intermittent numbness in his left hand and fingers. Given the foregoing, the Board finds that remand is necessary for an examination and an opinion as to whether the Veteran has the functional equivalent of loss of use of his left hand and/or arm. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Provide the Veteran with a VA examination to assess the current severity of his service-connected left hand/arm disability. If the Veteran declines the examination, an opinion should be provided based on the record. Following examination of the Veteran and/or a review of the record, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether the Veteran has the functional equivalent of loss of use of his left hand and/or arm. For purposes of this opinion, “loss of use” will be held to exist when no effective function remains other than that which would be equally well served by an amputation stump at the site of election below elbow or with use of a suitable prosthetic appliance. Ok now nowhere is the smc r or o address. Now I am waiting on the medical opinion report to be done 4 months. Still no report. I have over 25 years record big loss of use. I receive in home care for loss of use. The exam was a specialized exam done after 5 other exams. Now here is the crazy part loss of use is to be made by the rater not the medical doctor. c. Information to Request From an Examiner to Determine Loss of use requesting an examination to determine LOU of an extremity, ask the examiner to furnish a • Detailed objective description of remaining function Quantitative assessment of strength for each extremity involved, and • Description of any pain that affects use. Do not request that the examiner • Determine LOU, or • Express an opinion as to whether there is, or is not, LOU of an extremity or extremities. Note: If LOU cannot be determined upon review of an examination report, request an appropriate specialized examination. This the exam the board is rejecting with no evidence to reject it Loss of use is to be determine by the rater not by the examing doctor • Considering functional loss due to pain in claims for SMC, see Tucker v. West, 11 Vet.App 369, 374 (1998), and • Requesting a specialist examination, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart iv, 3.A.6 Ok I am just going to include the law and cases. I am going to use to fight the remand in a min if I don't get a decision soon. Someiano v. Principi, 17 Vet.App. 305, 312 (2003) (Court noted that it would not be permissible for VA to undertake further development if purpose was to obtain evidence against appellant’s case) Adam v. Principi, 256 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2001), (in which the court stated that it would be improper for the Veterans Court to remand a case to the Board to give the DVA another opportunity to develop evidence needed to satisfy an evidentiary burden it had failed to satisfy the first time, i.e., to “attempt to introduce new evidence sufficient to make up the shortfall” in the agency’s proof. Id. At 1322.” Everbody understand that a cavc remand is to be return to front of line. And given expidate treatment. That law.
  18. Well today I got a call from the board The ladies was nice look over everything from the court remand To the bva remand to ro. Like I said everything should have been return to the board front of line. Cavc remand and advance on docket. Are treated this way She told me I shouldn't have been told to do a new form 9 which put me in a new docket an remove it from The cavc remand docket. This why it was return The other cavc remand for my effective dates. She couldn't even find anything In the system were I requested for them to be move from legacy 2018 to 2021 ama. She said I shouldn't have been told to nod again this is what cause it not to be return to board. Now the bad news she tell me once again that she got to send it to a higher level. But she did see the error. Well this make me at least feel better I ain't crazy y'all lol. Well qtc is to do the exam on my record the 17. After a 3 month fight. I got a call from bva after a 3 month fight. And I have been waiting 3 week now for a judge decision on my petition. Somebody goin to get this right. The fight continues But I feel I am getting closer now to the end
  19. Man I am in fire I fought for 3 month to get this exam done. I call today to see if it was complete. Told the exam was cancelled and that I have to report to new exam they are not return it again. This is crazy Now I guess it never get return and I have to fight months again this is nuts. All my cavc remand issues are now just stuck. I will be doing a letter to a few Congressman the inspector general. I just call the white house hot line. There is no reason a va hospital can do this report. I don't have to go to the exam this was all done on purpose. Let me relax I ain't going to let this bullshit get me upset.
  20. Well I call the white hot line today. I spoke to them about a week ago about the qtc company and exam based on my record. It got take care of. Report is to be done the 17 by qtc we will see So I call about the bva not have a number not responding to irs from veterans or the 1800. Told they have been get alot of complaint about this. They don't even have a number to give veterans but the old number which go to 1800 va number I will tell every veteran who is have a problem with bva not responding do a complaint. Maybe we can get a number back. This makes no sense Bva has had a number for over 25 years why now take it away now. Ppl they are reducing veterans rating at a higher rate with these private company exams. Now veterans have no way of getting there appeal address. Seem like a set up to me. Lol Well anyway told they got a response from bva and my case was send to droc in Seattle. To take a look at it today. And the review is to be done by 27. We will see. Seem like the White House hotline at less got someone to address my stuff.
  21. Your appeal was remanded by the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Court Remand appeals are prioritized so that they’re always at the front of the line. ok so my ? Is if veterans are waiting 4 5 years for a bva decision when there cases is to be return to front of line. Something wrong. after developing by ro cases are to be return to front of line. Not waiting years in line. part of my petition we will see if court address it.
  22. I am ready to put my hair out with this qtc place. After a month of refusing there exam and try to get the va to follow the remand order which stated to give a medical opinion on my record. I miss a call from qtc so I call va 1800. Told yesterday they put in the request for the medical opinion on my record from qtc Ok. I call qtc bck and they tell me they got a request to clear something up on my record. So they need to do 3 more exams. I ask him to look at the va request the guy start laughing at me at say what do you want me to do. We don't do medical opinion we do exams I lost it today! guys i am a relax guy but to laugh as if I am a joke to him. I cuss him out everyway possible. I call white house hotline the guy Id is 61113. So the va has found away to stress veterans out more. Now private company can delay claims. You have to do a whole freedom of information just to get a copy of exam. Now the exam isn't even part va medical records. This is crazy everybody need to call white house hotline on these places. And I will be call my Congressman tomorrow in this place and everybody else I can. Soon as I said qtc the white house lady seem to understand what I was talk about. Think there getting a lot call about these private company's I am at the point they can just sit on the shit as long as they want and va allow them to. I am not calling that place or answer phone calls. They got my record do what the va is pay them to do. I am done with them.
  23. I have been to 8 comp exam for a smc claim this is crazy. Now I got a remand that state if I decline the exam make a decision on my record. That is what is to happen by law for smc benfits. But I got a remand to fight with this qtc place about my claim. Since I did this petition the board is gone crazy. It really time to bring a class action lawsuits. About this to many veterans are getting caught in this money game of comp exams. How many comp exam have you had during the claim and appeal and cavc remand process? Exam until you get one to say what they need to denied claim shouldn't be legal The bva judge all but told them I am better lol. Gave them a video doctor report to use. I have not work in 25 years do to my loss of use. O yes I denied the exam they don't even want to give me a denail now smh. Qtc told me they don't have to send it back until va request it. The exam address that the bva is denied was done at va hospital it was a specialized exam order one of the 8 Which stated on it this is all do to my service connect disabled. The fight continues.
  24. I am so pissed I just had to oppose the va request for more time to respond to my petition. The court gave them 30 day now the lawyer is asking for more time to get a response from bva and ro about my cavc remand. If it was in the va system still as a cavc remand they shouldn't have a issue address them. I just oppose them asking for 15 days lets see what the court say. Crazy part I was just told there was a admin strive error made by put my effective dates under a new docket under ama. But they still haven't send them back to the judge tho. This is a crazy process this time for real.
  25. Ok I am just posting again to show ppl the error that can happen after a cavc remand. Here is the court remand it reverse and set a side the effective that were granted By bva Jan 30 2018 Here is the bva remand to ro. The bva told ro to granted the same effective dates from the bva decision Jan 30 2018. the court set a side. Not legal Now I am in the new appeal lane for this issue with a July 2021 appeal date.smh to hold for years The court reverse the adjustment disorder The board remand it and stated it can only be return to the board if I do the va form 9. Starting a new appeal. We're did the cavc remand stated to do all this. It reverse there decision. I am now 102000 on the docket for this issue and be told I am waiting on a video hearing. I never requested one. Smh to hold years This is why i have a petition for extraordinary relief at the court. I see to many cavc remand case talk about 3 for 4 years to a decision. When we all understand a cavc remand is return to the board front of the line. You never have to start the whole appeal process over. Smh Upon consideration of the foregoing, the portion of the January 30, 2020, Board decision finding that Mr October 2018 NOD did not encompass that portion of the July 5, 2018, rating decision granting a 70% evaluation, but no higher, for a psychiatric disorder is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED for further adjudication; the portions of the January 30, 2020, Board decision denying an effective date before May 9, 2018, for the grant of SMC and entitlement to SMC in excess of the housebound rate, from May 9 to July 17, 2018, and at the aid-and- attendance rate from that point are SET ASIDE and the matters are REMANDED for further development, if necessary, and readjudication consistent with this decision; and the balance of the appeal is dismiss. Now look at the bva remand. I really think the court is going to trip when they see this. The court doesn't Grant many reversal. I am just venting again because the va send me the may 3 remand and all the other decision made after the cavc remand yesterday. Can understand why but happy they did. It made me look the bva remand over again. And I can really see were there errors started now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines