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
-
VA Disability Claims: 5 Game-Changing Precedential Decisions You Need to Know
Tbird posted a record in VA Claims and Benefits Information,
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
Picked By
Tbird, -
-
Are all military medical records on file at the VA?
RichardZ posted a topic in How to's on filing a Claim,
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
Picked By
RichardZ, -
-
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 reviews
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, -
-
Question
allan
January 17, 2008 Note: The Senate is expected to approve the revised bill next week.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/us/17victims.html
After Veto, House Passes a Revised Military Policy Measure
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
WASHINGTON — The House on Wednesday approved a sweeping $696 billion military policy measure after revising a single provision in the 1,300-page bill that had prompted a surprise veto by President Bush.
Mr. Bush had strongly supported the original bill, which included pay raises for the military and was approved by wide margins in both the House and the Senate. But he vetoed it last month after the Iraqi government raised objections to a provision allowing American victims of state-sponsored terrorism under Saddam Hussein to sue and to collect judgments by seizing foreign assets in the United States.
The Iraqis had threatened to withdraw $25 billion from American banks if the president signed the measure.
The revised bill, approved by the House 369 to 46, grants the president wide authority to waive any provision of the section on lawsuits by terrorism victims as it relates to cases involving Iraq. But it also urges the administration to negotiate with Iraq “to ensure compensation for any meritorious claims based on terrorist acts committed by the Saddam Hussein regime.”
Some lawmakers expressed satisfaction that the waiver pertained only to Iraq and that the section retained in the bill would allow victims of terrorism suspected of being sponsored by Iran and Libya to collect judgments.
Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey and the author of the measure to help terrorism victims, said he was glad the revision left his measure mostly intact. He said in a statement, “My provision is critical to ensuring that American victims of terrorism get the justice they deserve and state sponsors of terrorism like Libya and Iran pay the price.”
Others expressed annoyance that Mr. Bush had delayed the bill to protect the financial interests of Iraq.
Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, the majority leader, said it struck him as “extraordinary” that while Mr. Bush recently requested $196 billion in additional funds for Iraq and Afghanistan, “the Iraqis threaten to take money out of our country if it would be used to compensate the victims of Saddam Hussein regime’s violence.”
The Senate is expected to approve the revised bill next week.
Among the outstanding lawsuits against the Iraqi government dating from before Mr. Hussein’s overthrow are a case involving 240 of the Americans who were held hostage for use as human shields in the months before the Persian Gulf war of 1991 and a case involving American prisoners of war, including pilots who were shot down and tortured.
Advocates for those claimants accused the Bush administration of siding with the Iraqi government over American victims, and of failing to live up to a pledge that it made in 2003 to help resolve the claims.
“We think it’s a betrayal of a promise the administration made, a continuation in a long series of broken promises,” said Daniel Wolf, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs in the human shields case.
The revised bill also makes retroactive to Jan. 1 a 3.5 percent pay raise for soldiers and other benefits.
Carl Hulse contributed reporting.
__._,_.___
Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
Messages
"Keep on, Keepin' on"
Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL "Colonel Dan"
See my web site at:
http://www.angelfire.com/il2/VeteranIssues/
Change your email address when needed by signing in at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VeteranIssues/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
1
1
Popular Days
Jan 18
2
Top Posters For This Question
Pete53 1 post
allan 1 post
Popular Days
Jan 18 2008
2 posts
1 answer to this question
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now