Decision On Earlier Effective Date

[Pete53]

My DRO Hearing for EED was denied in 6 days. In a nutshell the DRO ruled that Hartness V Nicholson applied only to Veterans over 65 and in no way applies to me.

I intend to fill out a form 9 and appeal but I am a little discouraged. I did not read Hartness as applying to a particular sub set of Veterans maybe I can't read.

Pete

[Berta]

http://72.14.205.104/custom?q=cache:ZB5fR5...326217334650925

VA FAst letter on Hartness-

I dont see what this case would even have to do with your claim Pete-

Any vet with 100% should be considered for SMC to include HB and A & A if the medical evidence warrants it.

[Philip Rogers]

Berta, the court expanded the definition of housebound to include "inability to leave the home to earn a living" rather than "substantially confined"(that may not be the exact wording) but it's essentially what they've stated. By doing that it changes eligibility for some. I know he VA will fight it because of all the TDIU claims that could be eligible. jmo

pr

[Berta]

The Hartness decision involved a vet on the Improved Pension-not on VA comp-

I thought Pete was trying to obtain HB or A & A under SMC regs and then also try to get the SMC decision as retroactive.

Housebound and A & A regs:

http://www.va.gov/vetapp07/files2/0715494.txt

[jbasser]

Pete, the DRO reviewer is shooting from the hip. There seems to be a misinterpetation of the ruling in this case. Time for the old form 9 to proceed. If they dont back off of this, Stating a case that is totally irrelevent to your case may also be grounds for CUE if it was given as grounds for denial.

Hang in there Pete.

John

[Berta]

Yeah- maybe Pete should ask the RO to CUE that decision themselves-

in an older post Pete said:

"In effect when I filed and was granted HB Benefits effective December 2006 I proved to myself that I was entitled to the benefits. As my good Hadit Friend John and I have posted back and forth for probably 8 or 9 years I should have applied a long time ago."

Pete -did this hearing result from your NOD on the EED on that decision?

What rationale did the VA use to say that the EED should not be further back than what they gave you in that decision?

I am absoutely baffled by them using a CAVC case that appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with you-

Are you able to attach the decision letter here ? (block out the private info)

[Philip Rogers]

Berta, I'm the one who brought this up months ago, here. If you expand the definition in the regs it changes for all, not just pension recipients. jmo

pr

The Hartness decision involved a vet on the Improved Pension-not on VA comp-

I thought Pete was trying to obtain HB or A & A under SMC regs and then also try to get the SMC decision as retroactive.

Housebound and A & A regs:

http://www.va.gov/vetapp07/files2/0715494.txt