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

  • Donate Now and Keep Us Helping You

     

  • 0

Question On C.u.e.

Rate this question


Rockhound

Question

I'm pretty sure that I have figured out how to present a CUE claim, except when it comes to where, for CUE to prevail, it must manifestly change the outcome.

I can prove that the VA Claims Adjudicator failed to apply pertinate statutory and regulatory provision extent at the time that caused the clear and unmistakable error,

But I am having trouble understanding what "Manifestly change the outcome" means. what types of outcomes are we talking about?

In my case, although it concerns a change in the original diagnosis to an alternate diagnosis. The adjudicator failed to follow statutory and regulatory provisions extent at the time, i.e.

1. He did not get cirtification from the examining physicain to support the change of a diagnosis

(a) certification must contain a summery of the facts,findings, and reasons that support the

change in the diagnosis.

2. Their is nothing in the records that Adjudicator then considered what the change ment,

since he did not have the cirtification from the physician to guide him.

3. Their is nothing in the records that once the Adjudicator considered that severance of

service connection was warrented, a rating was prepared setting forth all material facts and

reasons, and submitted it to the Central Office for review.

4. and lastly, if it had gone to the Central Office, although their is no indication it did, and was

approved, the claimant was supposed to be given 60 days for presentation of additional

evidence to show that service connection should be continued.

Since the VA Examiners report did not have the certification that the original diagnosis was clearly and unmistakably in error and that his new diagnosis was the correct one, the VA Adjudicator could not make a determination or a medical opinion of his own and use this new diagnosis as an alternate one. Since the VA Adjudicator failed to send the report back to the VA Examiner for clarification, the report can only be interpreted that his diagnosis was a new and seperate diagnosis.

How do you show, how all this would Manifestly change the outcome of my claim.

I know that the evidence by the conferance of Naval Dr.'s and Psychiatrists would outway the VA Examiner's ambiguous report, at best, with his present diagnosis, since he states in his report that he could not solidly support the original diagnosis based solely on the history and not on any tests, exams or observations any longer than the exam itself, that he conducted, to support his opinion. Again, he based his whole opinion on the history, that it would be difficult to substantiae, in his opinion a solid diagnosis of schizophrenia. Not with standing or consideration, that the disorder was in remission, at the time of the examination.

It appears to me that the VA Examiner's report was insufficiant for rating purposes, so how do I prove that my claim would have manifestly changed if the report was so lacking. They can't go back and ask for clarification from the VA Examiner, or for that matter, the VA Adjudicatior either. It's almost as if the claim remains open, since the question of service connection of the original diagnosis from which service connection was predicated upon was never legally adjudicated.

Anyone want to run with this and give me their opinions and/or questions?

Rockhound :blink:

Are you a paranoid schizophrenic

if the ones you think are out to

get you, really are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Recommended Posts

  • HadIt.com Elder

With a CUE you have to show that but for the error made by the VA the outcome of the rating would have been manifestly different. That means like night and day. Based on the CUE your claim would have been granted and not denied. No other factors but the CUE caused the claim to be denied. This is how I read it. That is why it is so hard to win on these things. I know it is more complicated than that but that is one major aspect to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John999: That's what I am saying. Had their not been an error, the Examiner's report wouldn't even hold up to the scruitny of what it takes to make a change in a diagnosis. So not proving the personality disorder was an alternate diagnosis and the examiner not being able to concure or disprove the findings of the Naval medical board, the examiners report is worthless as evidence for rating purposes and since the Navy Medical board was loaded, with the test, exams and observation done or taken, then service connection should have been awarded.

Heck, I can't even get an IMO to concure with me on the matter, because he wasn't their at the time and any report written afterwards isn't admissable. It isn't even a matter of interpretation, it a matter of how the Adjudicator didn't apply the statutes and regulation extent at the time.

All worked up over this every time I think or write something about it.

Rockhound :blink:

Are you a paranoid schizophrenic

if the ones you think are out to

get you, really are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another question on C.U.E.

If a person wins their claim of C.U.E. and service connection or rating or whatever is restored or in my case would be to finally get my inservice diagnosis restored, what criteria then would they use to determine amount of disability. Would they use that which was in 1974, when the CUE occurred or the more liberalized diagnostic criteria that is used now using the DSM IV and current schedule for rating disabilities?

Am I making any since?

Rockhound :blink:

Are you a paranoid schizophrenic

if the ones you think are out to

get you, really are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rating would that which was proper at time of alleged CUE-and would consider any rating schedule changes during the CUE period.

In other words if a SC was coded with wrong diagnostic code and then rated wrong at 10%-but the CUE revealed 30% was appropriate-then the 30 % would be the retro for the period of alledged CUE up to whenever the rating went to 30 at the RO.

CUE claims at the BVA- whether denied or awarded and also at the CAVC are an excellent source of understanding this type of claim.

I like the denied ones as much as the ones that do succeed-because the rationale is in them for why they were denied.

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

Berta, thank you first of all for you continued support and information on CUE issues.

Their was no rated SC problem because of an alternate diagnosis of a personality disorder was used. I am not arguing CUE for the alternate diagnosis, The diagnosis was made, but that the adjudicator did not apply the staturary and regulatory provisions extent at the time in order to determine that such a alternate diagnosis was in actuality made.

Since their was no determination that a rating could be applied to. then how do they then determine where the rating should begin and which rating schedule would they use, the one in 1974 or the one now.

Are you a paranoid schizophrenic

if the ones you think are out to

get you, really are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

Rockhound

When you were boarded out of the Navy what was the diagnosis and did you get a rating? Was it a medical discharge? You may have said this before but I don't remember. It is incomprehensible that the VA would have overruled the Navy Board and denied compensation. It is usually the other way roung. You are asking tough questions that are technical and need to be sorted out by a professional I think. Berta says to look at past BVA and COVA decisions and that is how the lawyers do it.

I think you have a gripe on this thing, but you will have to be patient and really break it down for anybody at the VA. They won't understand and will just deny it based on lack of understanding of the technical aspects to your claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Tell a friend

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

    • LtDave earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • HillTopVet earned a badge
      First Post
    • kidva went up a rank
      Contributor
    • AFguy1999 went up a rank
      Rookie
    • kidva earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Our picks

    • These decisions have made a big impact on how VA disability claims are handled, giving veterans more chances to get benefits and clearing up important issues.

      Service Connection

      Frost v. Shulkin (2017)
      This case established that for secondary service connection claims, the primary service-connected disability does not need to be service-connected or diagnosed at the time the secondary condition is incurred 1. This allows veterans to potentially receive secondary service connection for conditions that developed before their primary condition was officially service-connected. 

      Saunders v. Wilkie (2018)
      The Federal Circuit ruled that pain alone, without an accompanying diagnosed condition, can constitute a disability for VA compensation purposes if it results in functional impairment 1. This overturned previous precedent that required an underlying pathology for pain to be considered a disability.

      Effective Dates

      Martinez v. McDonough (2023)
      This case dealt with the denial of an earlier effective date for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) 2. It addressed issues around the validity of appeal withdrawals and the consideration of cognitive impairment in such decisions.

      Rating Issues

      Continue Reading on HadIt.com
      • 1 review
    • I met with a VSO today at my VA Hospital who was very knowledgeable and very helpful.  We decided I should submit a few new claims which we did.  He told me that he didn't need copies of my military records that showed my sick call notations related to any of the claims.  He said that the VA now has entire military medical record on file and would find the record(s) in their own file.  It seemed odd to me as my service dates back to  1981 and spans 34 years through my retirement in 2015.  It sure seemed to make more sense for me to give him copies of my military medical record pages that document the injuries as I'd already had them with me.  He didn't want my copies.  Anyone have any information on this.  Much thanks in advance.  
      • 4 replies
    • 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 reviews
    • 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.   
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use