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
Wings
x
x
x
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Benefits Administration
Washington, D.C. 20420
December 22, 2006
Director (00/21) In Reply Refer To: 211A
All VA Regional Offices and Centers Fast Letter 06-28
SUBJ: Hartness v. Nicholson
This letter contains guidance for adjudicating special monthly pension (SMP) cases where the veteran is 65 years of age or older.
Background
On July 21, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) issued a decision in the case of Hartness v. Nicholson (2006). The veteran had been found entitled to non-service-connected disability pension benefits under the provisions of title 38 U.S.C. § 1513(a) based on being over age 65. He subsequently submitted a private medical report in support of a claim for SMP. He was determined to be 70 percent disabled due to loss of vision and entitlement to SMP was denied. The CAVC reversed a May 2004 Board decision affirming the denial and remanded the matter to the Board.
The CAVC determined that the Board erred because it failed to apply section 1513(a) when considering whether Mr. Hartness was entitled to SMP under title 38 U.S.C. § 1521(e). The CAVC held that “application of section 1513(a) results in the exclusion of the permanent-and-total-disability requirement in section 1521(a) and (e) when considering whether a veteran 65 years of age or older is entitled to non-service-connected disability pension.” The CAVC interpreted section 1513(a) as requiring an award of SMP to a wartime veteran “if, in addition to being at least 65 years old, he or she possesses a minimum disability rating of 60 percent or is considered permanently housebound as defined under 38 U.S.C. § 1502©.”
Statutes and Regulations at Issue
Title 38 U.S.C. § 1513(a), Service Pension, requires that VA pay an eligible wartime veteran who is 65 years of age or older pension at the rates prescribed by section 1521 and under the conditions (other than the permanent and total disability requirement) applicable to pension paid under that section.
Title 38 U.S.C. § 1513(b) provides that if a veteran is eligible for pension under both section 1513 and section 1521, pension “shall be paid to the veteran only under section 1521 of title 38 United States Code.”
Title 38 U.S.C. § 1521(a), Disability Pension, provides that VA must pay a pension to an eligible wartime veteran “who is permanently and totally disabled from non-service-connected disability not the result of the veteran’s willful misconduct.” Section 1521(e) specifically provides for an increased pension if the veteran has a disability rated as permanent and total and (1) has additional disability or disabilities independently ratable at 60 percent or more, or (2) by reason of a disability or disabilities, is permanently housebound.
Title 38 U.S.C. § 1502© provides that a veteran is considered permanently housebound when “the veteran is substantially confined to such veteran’s house (ward or clinical areas, if institutionalized) or immediate premises due to a disability or disabilities which it is reasonably certain will remain throughout such veteran’s lifetime.”
Title 38 CFR § 3.351(d) provides VA’s interpretation of the special monthly pension provisions under title 38 U.S.C. § 1521.
Application of Hartness to pension claims
There are four distinct types of claims where the provisions of Hartness could be raised.
1. A claim is received from a veteran over age 65 with no accompanying medical evidence and no claim for special monthly pension (SMP).
Process the claim as you currently do, with entitlement based on qualifying service and income.
2. A claim is received from a veteran over age 65 with accompanying medical evidence and a specific claim for SMP.
Congress has provided two means of establishing entitlement to non-service-connected disability pension: being age 65 or older, which does not contain a disability requirement (see section 1513(a)); and having disability sufficient to establish permanent and total disability (see section 1521(a)). In the example cited, the potential exists to establish pension entitlement under both sections. Pension will only be established under the age 65 provisions if the medical evidence is insufficient to establish entitlement based on disability. In such a case, there is the potential for future application of Hartness. If the medical evidence submitted is sufficient to establish entitlement to pension based on disability, entitlement to SMP requires that the veteran have a disability rated permanent and total and either have additional disability ratable at 60 percent or more or be permanently housebound.
3. A claim for SMP is received from a veteran who has previously been awarded pension under the age 65 provisions of section 1513(a).
Obtain medical evidence, including a VA examination if necessary. Determine eligibility for aid and attendance (A&A) and/or housebound. If entitlement to A&A is not shown, but there is disability ratable at 60 percent or more, entitlement to housebound is established.
4. A claim for SMP is received from a veteran who was awarded pension under the disability provisions of section 1521 prior to age 65 and who is now over the age of 65.
Evaluate entitlement to SMP under the disability provisions of section 1521.
Effective dates
Under the holding of a precedent opinion of the Office of the General Counsel (VAOPGCPREC 9-94), decisions of the CAVC invalidating VA regulations or statutory interpretations do not have retroactive effect in relation to prior "final" adjudications of claims, but should be given retroactive effect as they relate to claims still open on direct review. Accordingly, the holding in Hartness applies only to claims still open on direct review as of the date of the decision, July 21, 2006, and claims filed on or after that date.
Questions
Questions concerning this fast letter and other issues related to Hartness should be submitted to the VAVBAWAS/CO/21Q&A mailbox.
/S/
Bradley G. Mayes, Director
Compensation & Pension Service
USAF 1980-1986, 70% SC PTSD, 100% TDIU (P&T)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
1
Popular Days
Dec 19
1
Top Posters For This Question
Wings 1 post
Popular Days
Dec 19 2007
1 post
0 answers to this question
Recommended Posts