Is Their Such A Claim Involving Error?

[Guest Jim S.]

If a Veteran submits an Appeal of a previously denied claim, questioning the inadequecies of the VA Examiners examine, be viewed as an informal CUE claim for the inadequicies of the VA Examiners Exam and subequit Report for Adjudicational Purposes?

Should this informal CUE have been addressed in the SOC and if it is shown that it wasn't, would this be considered an open claim?

Jim S. B)

Edited December 21, 2005 by Jim S. (see edit history)

[Guest Berta]

A CUE is never an "informal" or inferred issue.

It is a collateral attack by the claimant on a past final decision.

The claimant must file a formal CUE, tell them the decision date of final decision (and attach the decision if they have the whole thing)

and the claimant must state the regulations they broke in their adjudication of that claim,and add that their error manifested altered the outcome of that claim.

I posted a CAVC successful CUE here some weeks back in which the veteran had incorporated a faulty C & P into the CUE-

I couldnt save the link- I got a AOL message that I had 2500 Favorite places saved and had to start eliminating some-to save more-

This case is at hadit somewhere-and of course at the CAVC.

If the VARO sees a CUE situation,however, they can CUE themselves and correct it and they have done that. I have received benefit of VARO cueing itself in the past on an old decision they gave me.

Final decision- I got it in 1997-bought what they were selling and never appealed it-

Regs had been broken-(Regional Counsel discovered the error while checking another matter I had with the VA)

Manifestly different outcome (they owed me more money)

The three Prongs of CUE -as called by the BVA- appear in almost every CUE decision-

each one must be satisfied in order to have valid CUE.

A vet emailed a CUE to me yesterday that we had developed-well Not we-

she herself had stated in email exactly what she needed in the CUE.

I just wrote it up briefly -2 -3 paragraphs but she herself had stated it properly-

she attached the decision and the reg they broke-and how this error -if not having occurred-would have manifestedly altered that old decision-as a higher rating is due the veteran -retro to the old decision-

Cue claims should all be fairly easy to understand their merits- on their face-obvious error-

and stated in one brief page,with the regs they broke, and the old decision.