Cll Retro

[jhfleet]

Just wondered if anyone that filed an agent orange CLL claim prior to October 16, 2003 has been successful in getting VA to move the effective date back. I've appealed my effective date twice, once informally and once officially and keep getting denied. This is perplexing since there is internal VA guidance in VBA Fast Letter 06-16 stating that due to court action CLL claims will be retroactive to date of claim. Also,several BVA appeals concering the effective date of CLL claims have gone against the VA. And, a few months ago the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found against the VA on this matter. That court gave them an unprecedented chewing out over their foot dragging. Obviously I'll file a NOD, but I'm wondering why they persist in ignoring the courts and their own internal guidance.

[jimlane1949]

What does CLL stand for?

[jhfleet]

What does CLL stand for?

Chronic Lympocytic Leukemia. It's presumed to be a result of agent orange exposure for those diagnosed with it during or after serving in Vietnam.

[Berta]

The VA tried to snooker millions out of AO vets in the past and they are still trying-

Definitely appeal this- I suggest to ask them for a Reconsideration

(just put Reconsideration Request at the top of the page and ask them to reconsider the EED they gave you- and copy , attach and in the request refer them to :

http://www.nvlsp.org/Information/ArticleLi...range/index.htm

I have given this info from NVLSP (who won Nehmer and got the VA to cough up in the past for millions of AO retro)

to other CLL vets from vet orgs I deal with ---

this is unconscionable when the VA continues to defy THEIR own regs.

Retro AO dates depend on many factors- but I assume your evidence warrants a better EED- also if they denied you in the past for CLL- that claim date might well be the proper EED for you.

Keep in mins and mark your calender however- the Reconsideration request might get this resolved faster than a NOD- BUT the NOD- if they dont satisfy the recon letter- MUST still be filed within one year after the decision you received.

[jhfleet]

Thanks Berta! I'm very thankful for what I'm already getting and don't want to get anyone in hot water. But, at this point I'm seeing a little humor in the situation. Through the courts, the NVLSP forced the VA to establish new procedures and to recognize earlier effective dates. But, local VA representives are ignoring everything and continue to hang their hat on the very regulation that's been declared invalid. I can't believe a local rater can do that with impunity unless there's a wink and a nod from higher up. I will ask for reconsideration and quote them their own FAST Letter. Wonder if NVLSP could nail them for punitive damages for ignoring a court order?

[jhfleet]

A little background on my case that might be helpful to anyone in a similar situation:

First diagosed with CLL in 1999. Filed for VA compensation in January, 2003, immediately after it was announced that CLL was being added to the list of Agent Orange presumptive diseases.

Awarded 100% for CLL in early 2004 with effective date of October 16, 2003. Award letter said October 16, 2003 was the earliest possible effective date under the law that added CLL to the presumptive Agent Orange list.

At some point, NVLSP filed suit over the effective date of CLL awards and prevailed in a lower court. VA then published Fast Letter 06-16 instructing VA raters to pay CLL claims to the date of diagnosis or date of claim, whichever was later. Further, the lower court ruling referenced in the Fast Letter required an outreach effort be made to current veterans receiving compensation for CLL as well as those with pending CLL claims. The outreach effort required that receipants and applicants be informed of the process to request an earlier effective date. However, receipiants were required to acknowledge that VA could recoup any excess payments if they (VA)successfully appealed the lower court decision. VA did appeal and lost their case in mid-2007. Since that time, I have twice requested and twice been denied an effective date earlier than October 16, 2003. Both times the stated reason for denial was that the law does not permit an effective date earlier than October 16, 2003. (The very date that the courts as well as the VBA Fast Letter declared invalid.)

Anyway, this is somewhat bizarre to me. Although English is my first language and I was a government bureaucrat who wrote similar nonsense for many years, I apparently cannot comprehend the language used by the VA. Black seems to be white and day apparently is really night.

Thanks for reading!

[Berta]

As I understand Nehmer and Cll retro- it should go back to the very first claim dated asking for SC for Cll-

even if it appears as NSC (which it would be on the rating sheet-prior to the regs)- in any past decision -this is the date for the retro-

and if the medical evidence in any way would warrant earlier EED that too is another way to go on proper retro.