diabetes 5 Years Additional Retro

[Berta]

This claim will give a good example of the Nehmer decision:

http://www.va.gov/vetapp06/files5/0630309.txt

Vet filed for SC of diabetes in 1997 (In country Nam vet)

VA denied.

BVA denied 2000.

Vet files again in Sept 2002. Granted and Awarded 20% back to Sept 5, 2002.due to new DMII regs.

The claim for higher than 20% was denied by the BVA.

However the claim for EED back to 1997 was granted.

The veteran, due to Nehmer, received the EED back to the date of his original denied claim due DMII.

[Pete53]

That is great. He must have had a good SO

[Berta]

I think a good SO could have fought this better at the RO level.

Good thing the vet appealed.

My former rep when I explained my claim involved Nehmer - said Nehmer who?

I think the Nehmer factor is why the VA is afraid to read my evidence and decide my AO death claim-

NVLSP said it was first of its kind.

[theotherguy]

Actually, I don't think a good VSO had anything to do with it. The Nehmer regulations had not been put in place at the time the initial decision was completed so their decision was not actually wrong, per se. Based on what I'm seeing in the regulations, 38 CFR 3.816 was not added until August 25, 2003. In other words they had no legal authority to go back until this regulation was implemented.

[Berta]

I was using this as the key point:

"Vet files again in Sept 2002. Granted and Awarded 20% back to Sept 5, 2002.due to new DMII regs"

My point was- since DMII was added to the regs on May 8, 2001-

the decision should have been Nodded vigorously-

I myself would have told the vet to request an immediate reconsideration of the EED.

Obviously the medical evidence of record and the fact that the vet had already raised this diabetes issue in 1997 warranted a better EED at the RO level.

Nehmer is sort of like Watergate-

what did they know and when did they know it-

In 1997 diabetes was the veteran's SC issue- and the claim was denied-

The publication date kicked in the regs for him.

Nehmer retro is based in most situations- when the veterans first raised the issue or the VA-in a past rating decision- listed diabetes as a NSC disability.

Apparently he was not one of the 13,510 DMII AO claims that NVLSP had to

get another court order on in 2002.

The additional court order stated that as long as a veteran had filed a DMII claim before July 9,2001 and after Sept 1985- the VA had to Re- review each claim and change the effective dates from

July 2001 (a date the VA was giving to most DMII vets ) and then give the veterans proper retro back to the actual date of their claim.

Nehmer not only applies to CLL but to ANY potential disease that VA may add to the AO presumptive list.Up to 2015.

The VA has an appeal pending over this facet of Nehmer but this is why I tell vets to file and raise the AO issue -if they are incountry Nam or exposed in Korea , Laos, Thailand, Okinawa, Guam etc-

as one potential basis for service connection.

What I mean is- say a Nam vet has clear nexus of HBP to her service in Nam.

Being in a MASH Unit she made sure she had good records of her inservice problems and both HBP and palpatations, a fainting spell etc were noted on her discharge physical.

This veteran could raise a claim for direct SC of her HBP and heart disease as manifested in service and-if I were her- raise the issue that these disabilities could also be from her exposure as in country Nam vet-to Agent Orange.Say she files this claim tomorrow May 19th 2007.

If VA denies and she continues to pursue or decides not too---and then in August,2010 heart disease becomes AO presumptive- her EED will be the actual date she files the claim and raised the AO issue.

She re-opens Sept 1, 2010 and asks for direct SC and the proper EED-which in her case would be May 19,2007.

It always pays to raise the AO issue.

[deltaj]

This veteran was denied an increase but given an earlier effective date. I wonder if he disagreed with the effective date in his Notice of Disagreement but failed to disagree with the percentage of rating given.

This claim will give a good example of the Nehmer decision:

http://www.va.gov/vetapp06/files5/0630309.txt

Vet filed for SC of diabetes in 1997 (In country Nam vet)

VA denied.

BVA denied 2000.

Vet files again in Sept 2002. Granted and Awarded 20% back to Sept 5, 2002.due to new DMII regs.

The claim for higher than 20% was denied by the BVA.

However the claim for EED back to 1997 was granted.

The veteran, due to Nehmer, received the EED back to the date of his original denied claim due DMII.