Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules
- 0
-
Tell a friend
-
Recent Achievements
-
Our picks
-
Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
Tbird posted a record in VA Claims and Benefits Information,
Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection. See COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL
This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:
Current Diagnosis. (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)
In-Service Event or Aggravation.
Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”-
- 0 replies
Picked By
Tbird, -
-
Post in ICD Codes and SCT CODES?WHAT THEY MEAN?
Timothy cawthorn posted an answer to a question,
Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability ratingPicked By
yellowrose, -
-
Post in Chevron Deference overruled by Supreme Court
broncovet posted a post in a topic,
VA has gotten away with (mis) interpreting their ambigious, , vague regulations, then enforcing them willy nilly never in Veterans favor.
They justify all this to congress by calling themselves a "pro claimant Veteran friendly organization" who grants the benefit of the doubt to Veterans.
This is not true,
Proof:
About 80-90 percent of Veterans are initially denied by VA, pushing us into a massive backlog of appeals, or worse, sending impoverished Veterans "to the homeless streets" because when they cant work, they can not keep their home. I was one of those Veterans who they denied for a bogus reason: "Its been too long since military service". This is bogus because its not one of the criteria for service connection, but simply made up by VA. And, I was a homeless Vet, albeit a short time, mostly due to the kindness of strangers and friends.
Hadit would not be necessary if, indeed, VA gave Veterans the benefit of the doubt, and processed our claims efficiently and paid us promptly. The VA is broken.
A huge percentage (nearly 100 percent) of Veterans who do get 100 percent, do so only after lengthy appeals. I have answered questions for thousands of Veterans, and can only name ONE person who got their benefits correct on the first Regional Office decision. All of the rest of us pretty much had lengthy frustrating appeals, mostly having to appeal multiple multiple times like I did.
I wish I know how VA gets away with lying to congress about how "VA is a claimant friendly system, where the Veteran is given the benefit of the doubt". Then how come so many Veterans are homeless, and how come 22 Veterans take their life each day? Va likes to blame the Veterans, not their system.Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Post in Re-embursement for non VA Medical care.
broncovet posted an answer to a question,
Welcome to hadit!
There are certain rules about community care reimbursement, and I have no idea if you met them or not. Try reading this:
https://www.va.gov/resources/getting-emergency-care-at-non-va-facilities/
However, (and I have no idea of knowing whether or not you would likely succeed) Im unsure of why you seem to be so adamant against getting an increase in disability compensation.
When I buy stuff, say at Kroger, or pay bills, I have never had anyone say, "Wait! Is this money from disability compensation, or did you earn it working at a regular job?" Not once. Thus, if you did get an increase, likely you would have no trouble paying this with the increase compensation.
However, there are many false rumors out there that suggest if you apply for an increase, the VA will reduce your benefits instead.
That rumor is false but I do hear people tell Veterans that a lot. There are strict rules VA has to reduce you and, NOT ONE of those rules have anything to do with applying for an increase.
Yes, the VA can reduce your benefits, but generally only when your condition has "actually improved" under ordinary conditions of life.
Unless you contacted the VA within 72 hours of your medical treatment, you may not be eligible for reimbursement, or at least that is how I read the link, I posted above. Here are SOME of the rules the VA must comply with in order to reduce your compensation benefits:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.344
Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Post in What is the DIC timeline?
broncovet posted an answer to a question,
Good question.
Maybe I can clear it up.
The spouse is eligible for DIC if you die of a SC condition OR any condition if you are P and T for 10 years or more. (my paraphrase).
More here:
Source:
https://www.va.gov/disability/dependency-indemnity-compensation/
NOTE: TO PROVE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL LIKELY REQUIRE AN AUTOPSY. This means if you die of a SC condtion, your spouse would need to do an autopsy to prove cause of death to be from a SC condtiond. If you were P and T for 10 full years, then the cause of death may not matter so much.Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Question
Guest Berta
Your SC disability was awarded by Presumption-
ie: manifested to at least 10 % within one year after service and/or while in service:
M21-1, Part III April 5, 2005
Change 132
d. Development of Evidence for Presumptive Service Connection. The issue of service connection for a chronic or tropical condition must be considered on both a direct basis and a presumptive basis. A substantially complete claim must be of record before the following applies:
(1) The possibility of entitlement to presumptive service connection will always be held to exist when the veteran alleges inception within the limiting periods contained in 38 U.S.C. 1112 or, when appropriate, 38 U.S.C. 1133.
(2) The veteran need not establish that the condition in question was definitely diagnosed within the presumptive period.
(3) Evidence should show that manifestations of the condition, disabling to the degree of at least 10 percent, became apparent prior to the expiration of the presumptive period shown within 38 CFR 3.307.
OK----there are some key statements there
your diagnosis did NOT need to be definitively established within the presumptive period
and "manifestations of the condition (disabling to at least 10%) became apparent prior to "
etc----
This would be MMPIs and 1976-1977 'manifestations' as documented-
(the diagnosis did NOT have to have been established)
Then if one reads this:
Sec. 1113. Presumptions rebuttable
(a) Where there is affirmative evidence to the contrary, or
evidence to establish that an intercurrent injury or disease which
is a recognized cause of any of the diseases or disabilities within
the purview of section 1112, 1116, or 1117 of this title, has been
suffered between the date of separation from service and the onset
of any such diseases or disabilities, or the disability is due to
the veteran's own willful misconduct, service-connection pursuant
to section 1112 or 1116 of this title, or payments of compensation
pursuant to section 1117 of this title, will not be in order.
(;) Nothing in section 1112, 1116, or 1117 of this title,
subsection (a) of this section, or section 5 of Public Law 98-542
(38 U.S.C. 1154 note) shall be construed to prevent the granting of
service-connection for any disease or disorder otherwise shown by
sound judgment to have been incurred in or aggravated by active
military, naval, or air service.
Source
(Pub. L. 85-857, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1120, Sec. 313; Pub. L.
102-4, Sec. 2(:), Feb. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 13; renumbered Sec. 1113
and amended Pub. L. 102-83, Sec. 5(a), ©(1), Aug. 6, 1991, 105
Stat. 406; Pub. L. 103-446, title I, Sec. 106(:), title V, Sec.
501(B)(1), Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4651, 4663.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(I went back as far as I could on this reg but need to check the sole amendment (Pub L 102-83) haven't found it yet-I dont feel it altered this much---)
One can see that
1. Presumptive conditions can only be rebutted with affirmative evidence to the contrary-
The VA has only found that you are SC and presumptive----they have no contrary evidence to that fact-
and
2.within b it clearly states that presumptive designation is synonymous with occurence in service-
IE: you had schizophrenia manifested in service by symptoms-as granted by the VA under presumptive-
This Sec of Title 38 is interesting in that it infers that the VA has to use 'sound judgement'-
I think the VA failed to properly rate you for a Presumptive condition-I think this is the regulation they broke-
Does this make sense to you?
This helps too:
http://webisys.vetapp.gov/isysquery/irld457/1/doc Buford V. Motley-
"Schizophrenia is a psychotic disorder and is considered a "chronic
disease" for purposes of establishing service-connected VA benefits within the statutory presumption period. 38 U.S.C. 1101. In the case of any veteran who served for ninety days or more during a period of war, service connection for chronic, paranoid schizophrenia can be established by
proving that it became "manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year from the date of separation from such service." 38 U.S.C. 1112 . VA regulation 38 C.F.R. 3.303(B) establishes that the chronicity provision applies where evidence, regardless of its date, shows that a veteran had a chronic condition in service or during an applicable presumption period and still has such condition. Under the Court's caselaw, medical evidence is necessary to support chronicity unless the condition at issue is one that lay observation can identify. Savage, 10 Vet.App. at 495-97.
(WHERE EVIDENCE REGARDLESS OF ITS DATE- my emphasis)
The record reflects that Mr. Motley provided to the RO and the Board lay evidence, specifically his testimony and lay statements from family members, that he experienced symptoms of schizophrenia within the
presumption period under section 1112. Moreover, he advised VA that he had been treated during service for migraine headaches, hearing voices, and sleep problems. R. at
118-21, 299-301, 668. However, there is no indication that the Board considered these manifestations of schizophrenia and applied them to the
presumption available under section 1112. See 38 U.S.C. 1112. Further, VA regulation 3.307© states in pertinent part:" etc----
I think this case has bearing on yours----too---
What do you all think?
I dont believe that the BVA used "sound judgement" (Sec 1113,38 USC)but that is not a CUE- I do believe it was a factor that caused a CUE by their failure to consider legal presumption at that time since it has been accepted as fact since.
There is and was no affirmative evidence contrary to Terry's actual documented disability.
Edited by BertaLink to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
1
1
Popular Days
Nov 16
2
Nov 15
1
Nov 20
1
Nov 26
1
Top Posters For This Question
SLEDGE 1 post
Angela 1 post
Popular Days
Nov 16 2005
2 posts
Nov 15 2005
1 post
Nov 20 2005
1 post
Nov 26 2005
1 post
4 answers to this question
Recommended Posts