Jump to content
  • Searches Community Forums, Blog and more

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'eed'.



More search options

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

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

Found 14 results

  1. Hello and thank your reading. Can I file for EED and how to do so? Filed Claim with 4 contentions on September 10, 2019 with a ITF from Sept 17, 2018-Sept 16, 2019 after being told by the VBA I needed to file it as Supplemental cause previously denied and closed. I got word from Peggy and sent it in with my new and material evidence to include my ITF 09,‘18-09,’19 which was in the first filing, in time under my ITF on Sept. 14, 2019. In late October 2019, Supplemental MH approved and IU inferred/deferred pending application with an effective date of Depression as Oct. 1 2019. I bunched the Depression with 3 others but then quickly submitted it as Supplemental still within my 1 year ITF. All three other claims denied sc or increase denied. My ITF is good for the other 3 and still is do to HLR pending but VA paid no mind of my Supplemental’s EED. I ask again, does my ITF cover my AMA award? If so, how do I appeal for it?
  2. I requested connection for psoriatic arthritis of the right hand, left wrist, and both feet. In addition to these joints the RO requested a C&P exam of shoulder, hip, elbow, wrist, knee, and ankle. I have no idea why they did this but it is possibly beneficial to me. I'll attach this part from my c-file at the bottom on this post. The VA only decided on the four claimed joints. The other joints that the VA put in the C&P request were never evaluated or referenced in anyway. This includes no mention in rating decision letter or during the C&P. Fast forward to 2015 I report for a VA requested future exam for the four SC joints. I made the complaint of joint pain in 11 joints to include the joints stated above from the 2009 C&P. These were recorded in the results as pain. In addition to the documentation in the 2015 exam, they VA acknowledged the additional joint pain and suggested I contact them if I wished to claim these. I stupidly did not see this until recently. Would I be able to get these joints connected and EED back dated to 2009 or 2015 based on an inferred issue and that no decision was made on the other joints? Again the VA is the one that requested the additional joints to be evaluated in 2009 and not me. Then they were never addressed. I am interested in this because I have been finding information on claims being considered open if the VA never renders a decision. While they rarely miss a veteran claim they often miss inferred issues. This seems like a pretty obvious inferred miss to me. The VA specifically requested the additional joints. Might be a stretch but this would be significant retro.
  3. How do we file if your claim comes back approved but you feel that it should have an earlier effective date than what was granted. Do you request a specific start date, or, leave it open ended and just say you request a review of the effectve date. And this has to be done within in a year of receiving the original approval correct?
  4. Are Missed Lab Reports/Diagnostics New and Material Evidence? Really wanted to thank everyone for their help in advising me. Since the last time I`ve posted I have went from 20% (for 30 years) to 80 %. My original claim for kidney disease was denied, with the help of a VSO, and is with the DRO to date. I decided no one would have the time to look at the 6000 plus pages and filed my other claims pro se. Following the guidance in this forum I was service connected for migraines (50%) tinnitus (10%), and left ventricular hypertrophy (30%) in addition to my original service connected HBP (20%). I really appreciate your help. I ordered my c-file and looked through all five-thousand pages and found that in 1981 and again in 1983 I had filed claims for hypertensive vascular disease (hypertension and enlarged heart disease). In the VA doctors evaluation of my claim, he mentioned there was no evidence of an enlarged heart.In the diagnostic ekg and chest xray reports, for 1981 and 1983, they both reported enlarged heart diagnoses. Could these reports be considered as new and material evidence because the doctor in making his decision didn’t take into consideration the material fact of conclusive evidence? Va just rated me with and enlarged this year (left ventricular hypertrophy) and gave me a 30% rating. Question: could this constitute an claim for an earlier effect date, a CUE perhaps? Not sure how to look at this revelation. Thank in advance for any replies. Cedric
  5. My husband is a purple heart disabled veteran with a current rating of 50% (due to shrapnel injuries from mortar blast). He was in Iraq from ’04-’05. He has just started talking to the VA about filing new claims for PTSD, TBI and a knee injury. While speaking with the VA social worker, she informed him he was diagnosed with PTSD in 2007 and TBI in 2013. He was never informed of these diagnoses at that time. Everything we read online says that there is no way to get an earlier effective date other than the date of his most recently filed claim (March 2018). Looking for advice if anyone has been successful in winning an EDD due to never being notified of the diagnosis? Any other advice you can share while going through this process? Thanks so much in advance for your help.
  6. Hi everyone! I'm new to the page and was hoping someone here might be able to give me advice on possible next steps. I've already taken action on getting earlier effective dates for two conditions but because you never how claims are going to go I want to prepare myself should my claim not go in my favor. My story begins in 2007 when I filed my initial claim with the help of AMVETS. The entire VA claim process was very intimidating and I depended heavily on my VSO to tell me what I could/couldn't claim. He went through my STR and told me what I could claim. Ultimately, I was awarded 60% and felt extremely lucky given all the negative things that I had heard about dealing with the VA. Once I received my award I didn't revisit my VA claim until 2016. My conditions had gotten worse and after doing research online and finding the CFR I realized that I was not being compensated fairly and that I was also not being compensated for conditions that I had in service/currently had and were never claimed. I filed my intent to file and then scoured my STR for evidence of current conditions that I wanted to get SC. This post only concerns two conditions that I believe I should have an earlier effective date for so I will only mention those two below. I figure the easiest way to digest my story is by listing everything chronologically so here I go: Sep. 4, 2007: Separate from the Navy Oct. 24, 2007: File claim for chronic lower back and radiculopathy down right buttocks, also filed claim for SUI, Cystocele and Rectocele Jan. 24, 2008: Awarded service connection for lumbosacral strain 10% (claimed as lower back condition w. radiculopathy down right buttocks) Awarded SC for Urinary Stress Incontinence with Cystocele and Rectocele 20% Effective Date: Sep. 5, 2007 May.9, 2016: File Intent to file Jun. 16, 2016: File claim for increase for chronic lower back condition, file new claim for uterovaginal prolapse Sep. 6, 2016: Awarded increase for lumbosacral strain 20% (claimed as spine condition), awarded SC for radiculopathy right lower extremity (20% even though I did not claim this but it was noted during my C&P exam for increase for chronic back pain), awarded SC for uterovaginal prolapse (30%) Effective Date: May. 9, 2016 Apr-May 2017: Look through old rating decision and claims file and realize that I had claimed radiculopathy on my right side in 2007 claim. Realized that the VA mentioned my uterovaginal prolapse in their decision about my SUI and cystocele/rectocele. Aug. 30, 2017: Visit Baltimore RO with NOD in hand to request earlier effective dates for my uterovaginal prolapse and radiculopathy, they stamp it and then tell me that I need to file a new claim not a NOD. They told me that I can't appeal a decision that they haven't issued yet. They rip up my NOD (which I still have) and provide me a form 21-526ez where I request earlier effective dates. Sep.6, 2017: I receive a letter from the RO stating that I filed my NOD on the wrong form. This was confusing because I didn't file a NOD because the RO told me that I had to file a new claim for the EED. Sep. 16, 2017: They add the new claim for earlier effective dates and I can see it in E-benefits. They combine it with a current claim that I still had pending for something else. Sep. 26, 2017: (decision on uterovaginal prolapse and radiculopathy become final) Oct. 6, 2017: My claim on something else is completed and they completely ignore the claim that I filed for earlier effective dates Mar. 6, 2018: VSO fills out another claim requesting EED for uterovaginal prolapse, and radiculopathy. Claim is currently at preparation for decision I believe that I'm entitled to earlier effective dates because 1) I claimed radiculopathy on my right side in 2007 and they combined it with my back pain in 2007 and issued me one rating. My symptoms are exactly the same now as they were in 2007 so why were they able to issue me a seperate rating in 2016? I was diagnosed with sciatica/piriformis syndrome in service and I have radiculopathy that originates in my buttocks and goes down my right leg. 2) I didn't claim uterovaginal prolapse because I didn't know that I could but the VA knew about it and mentioned it in their Rating Decision narrative for SC for my SUI and cystocele/rectocele. Everything that I read says this amounts to CUE because they did not "sympathetically read my claim and determine all potential claims raised by the evidence". I was told by my VSO that they were supposed to invite me to claim that condition which they never did. What do you guys think? Had the VA issued me ratings for those two conditions I would have been awarded 80% instead of 60%.
  7. Dear Hadit- EED granted at BVA, sent to RO for rating. RO rated PTSD w/Bipolar Disorder at 70% effective 11/20/2003 I believe IU should have been awarded as my SSDI records and award reasonably raise the issue of IU which wasn't considered. Will this need to go to CAVC or back through the NOD process at the RO? I'm getting conflicting answers from DAV and peggy etc... P.S. SSDI was awarded 5 months prior to 11/20/03 solely on my service connected bipolar.
  8. hello all, I finally got it figured out. Here is the info that I eluded to on a different thread refering to EED. I found this in my C-file while searching for info for a different contention. I had a exam this past summer and was rated 30% for pes cavus w/planar fasciitis, bilateral. Does this qualify for a CUE or EED? There is no decision regarding the foot exam. MED VA GOV DATE OF EXAM APR 17 2006 GENERAL REMARKS The veteran is claiming an Increase in residuals of a Left ankle injury please provide current symptoms including painless range of Motion In degrees for the condition noted above also note if there is additional loss of motion or fatigability with repetitive movement REVIEW OF MEDICAL RECORDS C-file was not available for review Medical documents regarding Veteran dating back to April 13 2005 until present day have been reviewed MEDICAL HISTORY This is a 32-year-old male who is service connected for a left ankle injury sustained while serving in the United States Marines fall/winter of 1997 following initiation of a new exercise regimen for Physical fitness during his active military career He was attached to a reserve unit at Willow Grove and began a new exercise regimen following what the veteran States was a more sedentary lifestyle Upon medical evaluation the veteran was recommended to do stretching exercises prior to his exercise routine and Was given a prescription for Motrin for pain He denies any long term Modification in his profile for physical fitness He does relate short duration of light duty for a couple of months and at one point was excused from the running portion of his PT testing. As of May 25 2005 has been followed in the Podiatry Clinic for left arch pain with a diagnosis of calcaneal spur syndrome left foot and has been treated with steroid injections custom molded Inserts night splints and oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatoray agents. 1 The veteran complains of pain including burning and tingling to the Plantar aspect of the heel and pain along the plantar arch of the left foot Symptoms are aggravated with the extending walking and standing especially during work He complains of stiffness to the lateral aspect of the ankle which occurs Upon initial weight bearing following periods of rest as well as with extended standing and walking The veteran also experiences tingling sensations to the hallux of the left foot with no aggravating factors His left hallux paresthesias have been occurring shortly following a steroid injection to the left heel which was performed on May 25 2005. He denies any swelling heat or redness to the left foot or ankle He denies any sensations of instability or giving way or locking sensation of the left ankle He does experience Some fatigue and lack of endurance to the left foot and ankle which is directly proportional to the degree of pain experienced This fatigue limits his desired amount of ambulation which has affected his work and social life Veteran complains of a limp at the end of his work day secondary to his Pain along the plantar aspect of the left foot and heel. 2 Currently the veteran is utilizing Naproxen which provides approximately 4 to 5 hours relief with each dose He has attempted the use of Gabapentin in The past for the burning sensation to the left great toe which he Discontinued secondary to alterations in his sleeping pattern The veteran is utilizing a pair of custom orthotics which does provide some arch and heel pain relief and some stability to the left ankle With his current orthotics he has noted significant early wear of the padding following use. 3 The veteran denies any periods of flare up of joint disease however the longer he stands on his feet the more aggravating his foot symptoms become. 4 Vet denies the use of crutches braces canes or corrective shoe gear 5 Vet denies any surgery or injury to the left foot following his active military career Mr Thompson relates in suffering a fracture to the first metatarsal of the left foot secondary to dropping a manhole cover on his foot which is not related to his military career. 6 There are no episodes of dislocation or recurrent subluxation as per the patient 7 There is no relationship of Inflammatory arthritis regarding the patient's claim of service connection 8 Describe the effects of the condition on the veteran's usual occupation and daily activities Vet is currently working as an assistant bindery operator binding small magazines and books spending approximately 8-12 hours a day on his feet His left foot and ankle pain is aggravated with the weight bearing required and is most severe during the end of the day Veteran does perform activities of daily living unassisted Left foot and ankle pain limits the veteran from participating in desired sporting and physical fitness activities 9 Right hand dominant as per the patient though he is left handed with sporting activities 10 The veteran does not utilize a prosthetic device though he does utilize custom inserts and recently has been dispensed (April 10 2006) a pair of custom accommodative orthotics He is unable to honestly comment the response of these Inserts since he is in the break in period of use of these devices. The veteran has utilized posterior night splints in the past which have Provided increase in flexibility to the ankle joint bilaterally PHYSICAL EXAMINATION VASCULAR Dorsalis pedis and posterior tibial pulses are palpable Bilaterally There is no swelling noted to the foot or ankle bilaterally Skin temperature is warm to cool tibial tuberosity to digits one through five bilaterally equal and symmetrical Positive dorsal hair growth is noted to the foot and ankle bilaterally NEUROLOGICAL Sharp/dull discrimination is diminished to the hallux bilaterally as well as to the second through fourth digits of the right foot Vibratory sensation is grossly intact, equal and symmetrical bilaterally. Protective threshold is intact with the patient able to perceive the Semmes Weinstein 5 07 monofilament bilaterally Deep tendon reflexes is +2/4 bilaterally. DERMATOLOGICAL Skin integrity is intact to the foot and ankle bilaterally There is mild hyperkeratosis along the plantar medial aspect of the interphalangeal joint of the hall bilaterally No signs of local infection are noted Skin color is within normal limits with no ecchymosis or erythemanoted to the foot bilaterally MUSCULOSKELET Left ankle joint range of motion is 14 degrees of dorsiflexion and 34 degrees of plantar flexion which is nontender and without crepitance upon passive and active range of motion Subtalar joint range of motion is 20 degrees of inversion and 10 degrees of eversion bilaterally Subtalar joint right foot nontender and without crepitus upon passive and Active range of motion against resistance For the left foot end inversion of the subtalar joint elicits pain of 3-4 on a scale of 0-10 at the region of the along sinus tarsi Pain of 8 on a scale of 0 to 10 is elicited with direct compression of the sinus tarsi left foot right foot is nontender with similar examination Pain with direct compression of the anterior talofibular ligament is a 6 to 7 on a scale of 0 to 10 on the left ankle Right ankle is nontender with similar examination The calcaneofibular ligament and posterior talofibular ligament are nontender to compression bilaterally There is a negative anterior drawer noted bilaterally and no subluxation of the peroneal tendons with forced inversion eversion plantar flexion and dorsiflexion of the foot and ankle bilaterally Manual muscle strength is +5/5 for the extrinsic dorsiflexors, plantarflexors, invertors and evertors of the foot bilaterally. Pain is elicited with direct compression of the medial tubercle of the left calcaneus The pain is Also elicited with direct compression of the medial and central bands of theplantar fascia of the left foot Right foot is nontender with similar examination There is no lateral bowing of the achilles tendon bilaterally Relaxed calcaneal stance position is 2 degrees everted on the left and 3 degrees Everted on the right Medial arch is maintained during relaxed calcaneal stance bilaterally First metatarsal phalangeal joint range of motion is limited with the left foot measuring 20 degrees of dorsiflexion and 35 degrees of plantar flexion and the right foot measuring 46 degrees of dorsiflexion and 28 degrees of plantar flexion Range of motion is increased as compared to his examination on August 1 2005 Passive range of motion of the first metatarsal phalangeal joint is nontender and without crepitance bilaterally Negative Tinel's sign with percussion of the tarsal canal bilaterally Gait analysis reveals a propulsive coordinated gait which is non antalgic Ani nverted heel strike is noted bilaterally Pronation is noted through the stance phase of gait with resupination noted prior to heel off No early heel off is noted bilaterally Medial longitudinal arch is maintained during The stance phase of gait Symmetric arm swing is noted bilaterally No signs of fatigue are visualized. Imaging There are no recent views of the left foot however there are prior views taken 4/27/2005 which demonstrate normal bone and soft tissue Densities Lateral view of the left foot demonstrates an elevated calcaneal inclination Angle measuring 28 degrees There is mild spurring to the inferior aspect of the calcaneus as well as enthesis along the posterior aspect of the calcaneus No signs of fracture or dislocation noted No radiographs of the left ankle are available for review An MRI of the left foot performed 3/14/2006 reveals no space occupying lesions within the tarsal tunnel or evidence of a Morton s neuronal There is notation of degenerative changes of the first metatarsal phalangeal joint of the left foot. IMPRESSION 1 Chronic Sinus tarsitis left foot with history of chronic left ankle pain. 2 Calcaneal spur syndrome left foot 3 Pes cavus deformity bilaterally 4 Hall limitus bilaterally 5 Pinch callus hallux bilaterally 6 Possible neuritis of the medial plantar nerve left foot 7 Sensory peripheral neuropathy COMMENTS This is a 32-year-old male service connected for chronic left ankle pain The veteran has a history of left ankle pain aggravated with running, marching and hiking activites performed during active military duties His current complaints of plantar heel and arch pain and lateral foot pain (calcaneal spur/sinus tarsiitis) are at least as likely as not related to the physical Requirements performed during his active military career compounded by his cavus foot structure There veteran suffers from paresthesias to the left hallux which began shortly following a corticosteroid injection for his left heel symptoms which is a possible complication with such treatment however it may also be related to his arthritic condition to the great toe joint Veteran Demonstrates sensory neuropathy to the right hall though nonsymptomatic Though it may be conincidental it is at least as likely as not that his neuritic pain to the left great toes is related to the treatment provided for his left heel pain His bilateral hallux limitus condition and assocaited callus to the great toe bilaterally is not related to the left ankle condition DeLuca provisions can not be evaluated with medical certainty Though I do not appreciate a decrease in range of motion secondary to pain the veteran may suffer a mild decrease in painless range of motion to the subtalar joint and ankle joint of the left foot with repetitive active range of motion with prolonged walking and standing Reduction of range of motion depends onThe level of discomfort/pain experienced at such time Clinically I do not appreciate any level of incoordination in gait. / PODIATRIST Signed 04/24/2006 08 47 Rating Decision May 18, 2006 INTRODUCTION The records reflect that you are a veteran of the GulfWar Era You served in the Marine Corps from November 16, 1992 to November 15 1998 You filed a claim for increased evaluation that was received on March 2 2006 Based on a review of the evidence listed below we have made the following decision(s) on your claim DECISION 1 Evaluation of low back strain which is currently 10 percent disabling is continued 2 Evaluation of bilateral patellofemoral pain syndrome which is currently 10 percent disabling is continued 3 Evaluation of residuals of a left ankle injury which is currently 10 percent disabling is continued A 10 percent evaluation is assigned for painful or limited motion of a major joint or group of minor joints This disability is not specifically listed in the rating schedule therefore it is rated analogous to a disability in which not only the functions affected, but anatomical localization and symptoms are closely related Medical records from the VA Medical Center show that you have complaints of pain of the arch, chronic impairment involving the left ankle which warrants a higher evaluation was not noted Objective examination findings show that you have painless range of motion measured asdorsiflexion of 0 to 14 degrees which is 6 degrees less than no al and plantar flexion of 0 to 34 which is 11 degrees less than no al The right ankle was noted as nontender and without crepitance upon passive and active range of motion The subtalar joint range of motion is 20 degrees of inversion and 10 degrees of eversion bilaterally Manual muscle strength is +5/5 for the extrinsic dorsiflexors plantar flexors mvertors and evertors of the left foot Pain was elicited with direct compression of the medial tubercle of the left calcaneus The pain is also elicited with direct compression of the medial and central bands of the plantar fascia of the left foot Under DeLuca v Brown inquiry has been made as to whether in addition to limitation Of motion there is increased disability due to any weakened fatigability incoordination or painful motion as a result of your service connected left ankle injury This rating includes an assessment of any such increased disability in terms of the criteria for measurable limitation of motion in the Schedule for Rating Disabilities Our letter of March 14 2006 requested that you provide evidence which shows that your condition has increased in seventy To date no such evidence has been received In the absence of evidence which shows that your residuals of a left ankle injury has increased in seventy based on the cntena noted above the 10 percent evaluation is continued
  9. When a Vet has a DRO hearing in the 'wings,' is that the time for them to present additional evidence of all their secondary conditions that the veteran has developed since their initial dx as the years went by. Will it effect the veterans EED if the Vet does so if they present the evidence at the hearing...? Is there a 'proper' way to do this, and what are the pros and cons of 'off the record' vs 'on the record' concerning DRO hearing protocol...?
  10. http://www.purpleheart.org/ServiceProgram/Training2010/Tuesday Training Outline NVLSP.pdf Short summary: If VA said you have a genetic defect, if you have PTSD or depression and are seeking an EED, or if you are seeking SMC read the above. 1. If you have a mental disorder, the VA does not require self diagnosis for a claim date. Applying for something else, and being treated by VAMC for a mental disorder, should suffice for the effective date. 2. Special cases: Clemons vs Shinseki: and Beverly v. Nicholson: These cases reaffirmed Roberson mandate, and made it even stronger for PTSD/depression victims, making it easier to get an EED. 1. “Appellant did not file to receive benefits only for a particular diagnosis, but for the affliction his mental condition, whatever that is, causes him.” 2. Vet’s “claim for benefits based on PTSD encompassed benefits based on an anxiety disorder and/or a schizoid disorder b/c evidence developed during processing of claim indicated that the symptoms for which [he] was seeking VA benefits may have been caused by an anxiety and/or schizoid disorder” I like the term "MAY" because that means the Veterans is given a very broad benefit of the doubt, this is much wider than just "equipose", its "may have been caused." This NEVER flies with other issues. The Veterans xx condition "may have been caused" by military service always means a denial with anything other than mental disorders. The Veteran still needs a regular nexus, but if his mental condition prevented him from applying, and his VSO did it later, then this should be an EED. Davidson vs Shinseki: . CAVC & VA were wrong to conclude that “a valid medical opinion” was required to establish nexus. Polovick v. Shinseki i. Vet claimed SC for malignant glioma, a cancer not listed on presumptive list Stefl & Polovick mean: i. Possible for vet to win SC for disability claimed as due to herbicide exposure under a theory of direct service connection ii. Gives advocates ideas re: how to win these claims iii. What does it take to win? Quirin v. Shinseki – VA Gen. Coun. Prec. 82-90 a. There are differences between a congenital defect, and a congentital disease. A congenital defect is static, ie, you were born without a left arm. A congenetial disease, however, can be "aggravated" by military service.
  11. Hello everyone. It took some time after finally having my claim approved for me to get this question ready. I appreciate any input that you may have. I was finally approved for my PTSD/MDD due to MST claim back in July. I immediately filed an NOD for an earlier effective date. Although the MST happened in 1989 and my original claim was from 2002, I was not diagnosed with PTSD until 2008 and started treatment off and on for the MST after that. What kind of evidence should I submit to back this up? I have the entry from Blue Button from July 2008 where the Psychiatrist diagnosed me. But that is all I have so far. The psych notes and therapy notes were part of the claim so I dont know what else to provide. NOTE: My claim for depression was denied at the BVA level back in June 2008 prior to the change to PTSD diagnosis in July 2008. I was so done with the VA at that time that I didnt file a timely NOD. Any help is greatly appreciated. As stated before, Hadit members have helped me in more ways than you can imagine. I truly thank you for your support.
  12. The situation: After appeal using a lawyer, a compensation claim is remanded back to the RO by the CAVC and service connection was then finally granted by the RO but with an effective date inexplicably years after the original claim was filed. A NOD was not timely filed for the earlier effective date (EED). Question: 1) Is the wrong effective date a misapplication of law and hence a CUE? 2) Since the time for a NOD has run out, is there any remedy to obtaining an EED after that point? The only issue is for obtaining an earlier effective date back to the date the original claim was filed. Keeping this simple, isn't the VA supposed to use the original filing date as the effective date of the claim? Any assistance appreciated.
  13. • My initial claim for Larynx Operation was submitted March 24 1999. • The addendum sent with the March 24, 1999 claim is in my VA record and can verify that Larynx Operation is one of the issues I claimed March 24, 1999. • The St. Petersburg Florida Regional Office had my March 24, 1999 claim for Larynx Operation and other issues for ten years without taking any action. • After ten years of no action on my March 24, 1999 claim, I submitted another claim September 14, 2009. • On October 15, 2009 the St. Petersburg Florida Regional Office mailed a notice to me stating they were working on my claim. It listed all the issues I claimed on the September 14, 2009 claim which are the same issues I claimed on the March 24, 1999 claim. • On January 6, 2010 the St. Petersburg Florida Regional Office mailed a second notice to me, this time stating they had received my claim. This second notice listed the rest of the issues from the March 24, 1999 claim. • The issues they added are not on the September 14, 2009 claim. They were from my March 24, 1999 claim. • They had found my initial claim from March 24, 1999. • Larynx Operation is listed on the initial March 24, 1999 claim and on the September 14, 2011 claim. • The RATING DECISION of July 29, 2011 backdated all awards (0% and up) to the date I submitted my initial claim (March 24, 1999). • The July 29, 2011 Rating Decision deferred three issues: Residual of Larynx Operation, Psoriasis Elbows, and Chronic Headaches. • The above three deferred issues are claimed on my initial claim of March 24, 1999. Residual of Larynx Operation is also on my September 14, 2009 claim. • The May 9, 2013 Rating Decision awarded 0% for Chronic Headaches backdated to March 24, 1999. The initial date of my claim. • A deferred issue on the July 29, 2011 rating decision. • The May 9, 2013 Rating Decision awarded 0% for Psoriasis, Elbows backdated to March 24, 1999. The initial date of my claim. • A deferred issue on the July 29, 2011 rating decision. • The May 9, 2013 Rating Decision awarded 10% for Residual of Larynx Operation backdated to September 14, 2009 (A deferred issue on the July 29, 2011 rating decision). • Larynx Operation is listed on that initial March 24, 1999 claim and on the September 14, 2011 claim. • The 10% award is given a later effective date (September 14, 2009) than the 0% awards are given (not the date of the initial claim for Larynx Operation). • The claim for Larynx Operation had never been adjudicated, not until the May 9, 2013 decision. • The award should be backdated to the date of the initial claim for Larynx Operation, March 24, 1999. From the outline above, can anyone advise as to whether or not I have a case for appeal.
  14. I hope starting a new topic is the correct thing to do. I won very old SC DIC claim (I reopened in 2007), won in 2009, retro only to 2007. I am working on getting EED (back to date of death, 1990). I have a current Decision (denial) dated April 2012, and now must file BVA APPEAL (I-9). I am working with Bash, he and I noticed the current VARO Decision lists part of the EVIDENCE is: ""Copy of Board of Veterans Appeals Decision (BVA) pertaining to earlier effective date for ionizing radiation exposure disability (No relationship to this claim as this is not ionizing radiation claim) "" I went back into my records to see where "ionizing radiation" was first mentioned (by them-I never used that term in my claim(s)) to find this in the BVA Decision dated 1994 (my original claim was 1990 and this was the BVA APPEAL to that ongoing claim). This is what I found in the 1994 BVA Denial: ""At the time this case was orinally before the Board in April 1992, it appeared that the appellant had presented a claim which was plausible and, therefore, "well-grounded" within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. $ 5107 (a) (West 1991). However, for reasons explained below, we are now of the opinion that the appellant has not submitted evidence of a well-grounded claim. "" ""In order for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death to be granted, it must be shown that a service-connected disorder caused the death or substantially or materially contributed to it. A service - connected disorder is one which was incurred in or aggravated by service, or one which was proximately due to or the result of an established service-connected disability. During the veteran's lifetime, service connection had been established for nodular sclerosing Hodgkin's disease, which was rated as 100 percent disabling. According to his death certificate, the immediate cause of his death in August 1991 was arteriosclerotic heart disease. There were no other conditions contributing to death, and an autopsy was not conducted."" ........"" Arteriosclerotic heart disease is not recognized to be a potentially "radiogenic disease" under 38 U.S.C.A. $ 1112 © and 38 C.F.R. $ 3.309 (d). Consequently, the veteran's fatal arteriosclerotic heart disease may not be attributed to service radiation exposure, 38 C.F.R. $ 3.311b; see also Comboe v Principi No. 91-786 (U.S. Vet. App. January 1, 1993)."" ......""Subsequent to the May 1992 remand, the United States Court of Veterans Appeals held that where the determinative issue in a claim involves medical causation or a medical diagnosis, competent medical evidence to the effect that the claim is plausible is required to establish that the claim is well grounded. Grottviet v Brown, U.S. Vet.App. 92-20 (May 5, 1993). Lay persons are not competent to offer opinions on medical causation. Espiritu v Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492 (1992). If no competent medical evidence is submitted to support the claim, it is not well grounded. Tirpak v Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 609, 611 (1992). In light of this additional case law and the absense of competent medical evidence to support her claim, we must conclude that the appellant's claim is not well grounded. Accordingly, service connection for cause of the veteran's death is not in order."" Now, my question.... Dr. Bash says "sounds like radiation error; should get EED"..... Can I possibly be awarded EED on this BVA APPEAL as it is related to my 2009 DIC award (retro to 2007) ?? OR Is it necessary to open a NEW CUE claim in order to use this effectively (with IMO) to go for the EED? Please can someone help me understand as I do not want to make a mistake here. I am ready to file the I-9 and I read Berta's "verbage" on exactly how to word what I am "taking exception to".... VERY helpful! Berta also suggested sending your exhibits (IMO too?) WITH the I-9 for them to have your evidence ......so it is very important for me to KNOW if I should send all of this as it relates to my current claim for EED of the 2007 effective date of my DIC award.??? IF I need to use a CUE for this, then how would I respond to the current APPEAL? Sorry to have written a book but I really need advice from you who really understand the law/regs etc., and you needed to know all these pertinent facts to be clear on what is happening. Just a word to explain my dilemma, I have had two SO's (AMVETS) and (TEXAS VETERANS COMMISSION) and neither one of them want to assist or represent me anymore....can you believe it? Thank you so much! Judy B ( original case is in jurisdiction of Houston VARO)
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines