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

[Pete53]

Bless you Philip Rogers and Berta for the life of me I did not see how the VA could claim that Hartness only applied to 65 year old pensioners. I feel strongly that I will either ask for CUE and quote the ruling with appropriate CFR's or I will ask for a reconsideration using the same format.

If I fail I will appeal direct to BVA and ask for the decision to be made on the evidence on hand with no hearing. If it fails there I will go to Court.

I am not going to let this stand and I also intend to ask for a CUE in another claim for the earlier effective date of when I applied for Service Connected Disability in 1991. We will see what they do about that. I am not going to leave a stone unturned to get what they owe me.

I am also glad that we can discuss these type of issues on Hadit and hopefully with the traffic that comes here other Veterans will be helped.

John999 when are you going to ask for yours? I suspect that if I can go back for EED than so should you.

PS A lot of Hadit members have helped me but I owe what ever I have achieved on HB to my old friend John999

[Guest rickb054]

Months ago when Phillip brought up Hartness V Nicholson, I read it and concluded it only applied to NSC pensions. They may now say it only applies to 65 years and older because for (if I understand )NSC Pensions you must be 65 or older and a combat era veteran to qualify for a NSC Pension. I still feel this is the case. While I hope that you win your case Pete, I don't see how you will win it citing Hartness, but I have been wrong before and hope I am wrong now.

[Pete53]

Rick:

I appreciate that but the BVA Case that applied Hartness was a Veteran just like me. Take a look at this and tell me what you think

http://www.va.gov/vetapp06/files5/0634442.txt

Philip Rogers provided the link in an earlier post.

I have never understood how the VA could use different rules for different sub sets of Veterans.

[Philip Rogers]

Rick, what has happened is the court has expanded or better defined the last paragraph of 38 CFR 3.350, which effects all veterans, not just those 65 or over. The BVA made that determination, in the case I posted, not me. Peter should win if he's since been awarded HB and they didn't consider it, as an inferred issue, when he was awarded 100% schedular. Go Pete!!! jmo

PR

[Guest rickb054]

Rick:

I appreciate that but the BVA Case that applied Hartness was a Veteran just like me. Take a look at this and tell me what you think

http://www.va.gov/vetapp06/files5/0634442.txt

Philip Rogers provided the link in an earlier post.

I have never understood how the VA could use different rules for different sub sets of Veterans.

Pete I read the cited case, and I just don't know.. it seems very vague to me, and since it was remainded it is hard to know what the outcome will be. I do agree that if a disability keeps someone from working they they should be awarded housebound. I also see as was stated before many veterans tdiu flooding the system with housebound claims (and I hope they do file).

I have a claim in for housebound/ A&A since February 2007 but my claim revolves around my oxygen use, and being wheelchair dependant. I have never claimed housebound /A&A for any other reason although I think it should have been awarded when I was awarded TDIU in 1999.

[john999]

Phil

Explain how TDIU vets should be considered for possible HB. I also think that if they have a condition that confines them to home they should be considered, but that 100% schedular requirement is an problem in my mind. I have a similar diagnois to Pete but I am IU, so I wonder how I should attack this requirement for 100% rating.