It appears that she was denied and did not appeal the initial denial of her DIC and that decision became final.
The VA had said that her PTSD husband's smoking habits had caused his demise due to heart disease and died on that basis.She was finally award DIC however in 1999 when she re-opened her claim.
That left the 1984 decision which was obviously erroneous.
Many say that Cue is only a one shot deal but that is an arbitrary statement-
her first CUE was dismissed without prejudice and she filed another CUE and won it fairly recently (2008)
DIC from 1984 to 1999.
This case shows two things- how medical ecvidence factors into CUE claims but how they still depend on Legal error and also it shows that
this claim could easily have never even been pursued by the widow-
I wonder if she even had a vet rep early on who supported the CUE claim.
The VA would have kept 15 years of retro DIC if this widow had not diligently pursued this claim.
It is sheer logic and common sense that if VA finds SC death in 1999,then the vet had to have had a SC death in 1984!
Common sense and logic are not products of the VA- they are products of diligence when any widow or veteran knows they received an erroneous denial based on clear and unmistakable error.
Question
Berta
Leona T. Benoit # 07-2499
DIC from 1984-to 1999
The widow's prior CUE claim had failed.
She was granted DIC but only back to 1999.
It appears that she was denied and did not appeal the initial denial of her DIC and that decision became final.
The VA had said that her PTSD husband's smoking habits had caused his demise due to heart disease and died on that basis.She was finally award DIC however in 1999 when she re-opened her claim.
That left the 1984 decision which was obviously erroneous.
Many say that Cue is only a one shot deal but that is an arbitrary statement-
her first CUE was dismissed without prejudice and she filed another CUE and won it fairly recently (2008)
DIC from 1984 to 1999.
This case shows two things- how medical ecvidence factors into CUE claims but how they still depend on Legal error and also it shows that
this claim could easily have never even been pursued by the widow-
I wonder if she even had a vet rep early on who supported the CUE claim.
The VA would have kept 15 years of retro DIC if this widow had not diligently pursued this claim.
It is sheer logic and common sense that if VA finds SC death in 1999,then the vet had to have had a SC death in 1984!
Common sense and logic are not products of the VA- they are products of diligence when any widow or veteran knows they received an erroneous denial based on clear and unmistakable error.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
3
1
1
Popular Days
Sep 7
4
Aug 25
1
Top Posters For This Question
Berta 3 posts
halos2 1 post
judy1 1 post
Popular Days
Sep 7 2008
4 posts
Aug 25 2008
1 post
4 answers 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