Next to the VCAA the Nehmer decision was the most important decision I have ever seen -after 25 years dealing with the VA-
I have spent considerable time studying the legalize of this case and have discussed Nehmer with the lawyers who won it at NVLSP in Washington DC.
I found this AM that there were 3 BVA decisions re Nehmer retro that I feel were definitely wrong in their interpretation of Nehmer - in 2007-that surprised me-I will re-read them -maybe I missed something
I hope the vets appealed to the court.
This is an important part of the above BVA decision link-which is correct.
ORDER
"Entitlement to an effective date earlier than November 20,
2002, for the grant of service connection for diabetes
mellitus, type II, is denied"
OK- denied- but the vet filed his initial claim for DMII on Nov 20, 2003.
The DMII regs were law as of May 8, 2001.
The vet wanted more retro but was denied.
The point here is- and it is critical to Donnies question below-
the VA DID award an EED one year prior to filing his claim for DMII.
Medical evidence shows that he did have SC DMII for one year prior to filing his initial claim.
The RO correctly awarded this favorable EED- because he was Categiry # 3 class action Nehmer vet-I think Donnie here is also Category # 3 vet-
This is also clearly spelled out in the 2006 edition and prior editions of the VBM published by NVLSP.
Page 634 and 635.
EVERY AO vet should double check their decision and the Nehmer regs- the VA tried to snooker millions from AO vets in retro-
I have no doubt that they still fail to award proper EEDs in many AO claims.
A category # 3 AO vet can often get an EED beyond the date of the AO claim-up to one year more retro.
I cannot explain it all here because it would turn into a small book.
The VBM contains considerable information on this important Class action case.
GRADUATE ! Nov 2nd 2007 American Military University !
When thousands of Americans faced annihilation in the 1800s Chief
Osceola's response to his people, the Seminoles, was
simply "They(the US Army)have guns, but so do we."
Sameo to us -They (VA) have 38 CFR ,38 USC, and M21-1- but so do we.
Question
Berta
Donnies post under 38 USc 5110 and others here might see what I mean in my reply to him within this recent BVA case:
http://www.va.gov/vetapp07/files1/0702913.txt
Next to the VCAA the Nehmer decision was the most important decision I have ever seen -after 25 years dealing with the VA-
I have spent considerable time studying the legalize of this case and have discussed Nehmer with the lawyers who won it at NVLSP in Washington DC.
I found this AM that there were 3 BVA decisions re Nehmer retro that I feel were definitely wrong in their interpretation of Nehmer - in 2007-that surprised me-I will re-read them -maybe I missed something
I hope the vets appealed to the court.
This is an important part of the above BVA decision link-which is correct.
ORDER
"Entitlement to an effective date earlier than November 20,
2002, for the grant of service connection for diabetes
mellitus, type II, is denied"
OK- denied- but the vet filed his initial claim for DMII on Nov 20, 2003.
The DMII regs were law as of May 8, 2001.
The vet wanted more retro but was denied.
The point here is- and it is critical to Donnies question below-
the VA DID award an EED one year prior to filing his claim for DMII.
Medical evidence shows that he did have SC DMII for one year prior to filing his initial claim.
The RO correctly awarded this favorable EED- because he was Categiry # 3 class action Nehmer vet-I think Donnie here is also Category # 3 vet-
This is also clearly spelled out in the 2006 edition and prior editions of the VBM published by NVLSP.
Page 634 and 635.
EVERY AO vet should double check their decision and the Nehmer regs- the VA tried to snooker millions from AO vets in retro-
I have no doubt that they still fail to award proper EEDs in many AO claims.
A category # 3 AO vet can often get an EED beyond the date of the AO claim-up to one year more retro.
I cannot explain it all here because it would turn into a small book.
The VBM contains considerable information on this important Class action case.
GRADUATE ! Nov 2nd 2007 American Military University !
When thousands of Americans faced annihilation in the 1800s Chief
Osceola's response to his people, the Seminoles, was
simply "They(the US Army)have guns, but so do we."
Sameo to us -They (VA) have 38 CFR ,38 USC, and M21-1- but so do we.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
6
4
2
2
Popular Days
Jul 14
7
Jul 15
5
Jul 20
3
Top Posters For This Question
Berta 6 posts
stillhere 4 posts
theotherguy 2 posts
donnie 2 posts
Popular Days
Jul 14 2007
7 posts
Jul 15 2007
5 posts
Jul 20 2007
3 posts
14 answers to this question
Recommended Posts