I've Got A Question: If You Initially Make A Claim For One Benefit Isn't The Va

[LarryJ]

supposed to accept that claim as a claim for all benefits to which you are entitled?

[Pete53]

If you don't ask specifically you have a snowballs chance in hell of VA really looking into your claim. I have 3 separate awards from VA and I had to ask specifically for each one.

Not only do you need to spell it out you have to highlight it for them.

Technically Larry is right though the VA is supposed to look at all issues. Its the main reason they give for all of their delays.

[halos2]

Wow Berta 20 years fighting the VA no wonder you are so knowledgable with the processes.

Now if 70% is that like 50% one claim and 20% another or with the VA math which is quite different % wise, to be considered for TDIU.

Some claims are so obvious that the VA will consider other conditions: TDIU consideration is a good example when the veteran's SC is 70%.

Also SMC is something the VA should consider when there are certain established facts in the main claim.

But the reality is VA doesnt do what they are supposed to do-

anyhow-

we often have to spell this stuff out for them like they are 10 years old and cannot assume they themselves will do anything-

The BVA backlog and the thousands of remands there show that as well as the fact that this website-Hadit-grows by the day-in part because the VA doesnt do what they should-

If you have found an additional claims issue- and have a claim pending -now is the time to raise the new issue-

particularily if it could be secondary to the initial claim.

I have a local vet who did not raise his major cardiac problems in his claim for diabetes-I could not seem to get him to understand that it had to be put into the claim.

Also he had a skin condition that even the C & P doctor stated needed medical assessment and attention which was, after I researched the type of skin disorder-directly attributable to diabetes-

He got lowballed at 20% but felt that his IMO and his medical records covered the fact his CAD was directly due to his diabetes.They did but he failed to claim the CAD.

I have seen claims at the BVA web site that were so limited in their description of the disability that the BVA denied but perhaps if the claim had been worded with more detail-they could have succeeded.

VA is barely getting through one or two pages of our claims-and evidence as it is-

it is too much to expect them to go beyond what the claim itself states.

A VARO employee attempted to file a Motion in my behalf at the BVA in 2006- on a old denial I had there- obviously this employee caught something-I think BVA told me they had to reject the motion because the employee did not give the date of the prior decision-

and I think I should look into that older claim myself-and file motion on it-

This is the first time 20 years or more of dealing with the RO that I saw where a VARO employee went beyond the norm

(except for when the RC attorney found an old CUE and awarded it to me- he read my old CUE claim that was denied and realized I was legally correct-).

We just cant expect ROs to take the time to identify and develop issues we ourselves have not specifically claimed.

[LarryJ]

Okay, let's see if I can 'splain why I asked this question:

In 1987 I applied for a VA Home Loan.

At that time I had never filed any kind of "claim" with the VA, not for compensation, nothing.

My application for VA Home Loan went through the Houston VA loan office.

The Houston RO worked my "claim" to see if I was eligible for a VA loan.

My application went through the Rating Board, just like an application for compensation would.

The Rater denied my application.......using the same rationale and the same SMR's that the Waco RO did in 2003 when I finally got around to applying for compensation (prior to enlistment injury aggravated by service) and was granted compensation.

Now, the VA in Houston at the time of my application for VA Loan in 1987 never sent me anything, not a SOC, nuthin. My real estate agent is the one who informed me of the decision (I wound up picking up a already existing VA loan on the house, but that has nothing to do with what I'm now talkin about).

I never saw a thing from the VA, as I said, until I got a copy of my c-file and low-and-behold, there is all the paperwork, the inter-office memos, the formal denial from the Rater including, like I said, all the sameo stuff that the Waco RO used for my denial in 2003 (which was remanded by the BVA and granted some 4 years later).

What about my app in 1987? And, of course, the reason I ask is because of an earlier effective date. Like I said, I had NO communication with the RO.....so I don't believe that they could say that I didn't NOD their decision.......even THEIR paperwork from 1987 does NOT include any reference to my receiving a SOC, or, for that matter, a proper notification of the rating board's decision.

[Rockhound]

I'm confused about your VA Home Loan Guarenty denial. What reason were you given for the denial? I thought as long as you where discharged under Honorable conditions and met the financial and other requirements set by the VA for the Home Loan guarenty, then they couldn't deny you.

I thought the loan guarenty was a given as long as you have the qualifying income, residence status requirements, the home you wish to buy qualifies, and of course, having the discharge under Honorable conditions. I'm sure their are other requirements, but having a disability and correct me if I am wrong, is not one of the necessary requirements.

I qualified for a what they called at the time, G.I. Bill Home Loan Guarenty, and I am certainly don't remember having to answer any question or questions regarding my disability statis. whcih was SC at 0% for a Nasal Bone Fracture or in laymans terms, broken nose.

Help me better understand why you were denied. If I am wrong in how one qualifies or qualified in 1981, then let me know so I am not so confused about this issue.

Rockhound Rider ;) ;)

[Berta]

Larry-to get back to your initial question- I dont think my advise was complete-or helpful enough

http://www.stardustent.com/

If you go to Stardust and click on the SVR archives- March 12th 2008-

my show with Rich Cohen will start to play in your media player-

Rich (EXecutive Director- NOVA) about halfway through the show- maybe after I took the second station break- speaks of how the VA is supposed to "Liberally construe" all claims as to any potential benefits.

He cited the recent Robinson decision-(this is in the Federal Circuit court now)

and went on further to explain this-

one thing for sure he and I agree on-

although the VA is supposed to liberally contrue any potential benefit possible to a claimant-

a claimant should raise themselves-every possible theory at all for an award.

Rich tells of the CAD vet he had who was trying to get his CAD as presumptive secondary to his DMII-(AO) but the vet found in his SMRs, the basis for direct SC of the CAD-

the vet had raised 2 theories of potential entitlement.

Also recently a vet here has basis for Section 1151 and also secondary claim -for same disability-

I have raised 3 possible theories that my husband's death should be directly SCed.

I dont know how the loan program works but I think you were talking about disability claims- and how the should consider all potential bases for SC.

The taped show might help you-

also we covered SC due to aggravation of pre existing condition and SC aggravating a NSC condition-

I need to get Rich back on SVR soon- these lawyers say it as it is and they deal with all of the nuances of VA case law-

I just got email from another attorney I had on the show- he has been filing negligence claims against C & P doctors-in his state-

he hasnt gotten anywhere with that but I was thrilled to hear this-

if a C & P doc parses and manipulates medical evidence for the entity who pays them, to deny a claim via a C & P exam -I too feel this is gross medical negligence.

C & Ps dont diagnose nor offer any treatment- so in that respect the C & P docs dont "damage" the vet-just make it more difficult for them in many cases-to attain their proper SC.

Edited July 27, 2008 by Berta

[Mcafee]

]Berta VA is supposed to "Liberally construe" all claims as to any potential benefits.

Hello All Hope all is well. I have a Question Re: If in fact this all of the necessary information is in your C-File and SMR Initial Claim to substantiate or claim filed for SERVICE Connection and not all of this was considered,I would speculate that this could be a Clear Mistakable Error. your thoughts Thank You