Jump to content

Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts 
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules 

  • tbirds-va-claims-struggle (1).png

  • 01-2024-stay-online-donate-banner.png

     

  • 0

Decision On Earlier Effective Date

Rate this question


Pete53

Question

  • HadIt.com Elder

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

Veterans deserve real choice for their health care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Recommended Posts

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.

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

  • HadIt.com Elder

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

  • HadIt.com Elder

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

A Veteran is a person who served this country. Treat them with respect.

A Disabled Veteran is a person who served this country and bears the scars of that service regardless of when or where they served.

Treat them with the upmost respect. I do. Rejection is not a sign of failure. Failure is not an option, Medical opinions and evidence wins claims. Trust in others is a virtue but you take the T out of Trust and you are left with Rust so be wise about who you are dealing with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

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

  • HadIt.com Elder

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Tell a friend

    Love HadIt.com’s VA Disability Community Vets helping Vets since 1997? Tell a friend!
  • Recent Achievements

    • KMac1181 went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Lebro earned a badge
      First Post
    • stuart55 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • stuart55 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Lebro earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Our picks

    • Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
      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
    • Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability rating 
    • 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.   
    • 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

       
    • 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. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use