Erroneous Statement In Soc

[Guest Jim S.]

Part of my CUE claim points out the erroneous statement in the SOC, made by the Rating Specialist and signed off by the Adjudication Officer. If the VARO fails to consider the errors that I have pointed out, what is going to be my best course of action?

Like Berta has stated, they have to read the claim first, to have any understanding what, where, and how the CUE occured. If they do not look past the previous statement of the case and read the evidence, then they are likely as not to just rubber stamp the previous ruling and deny the claim.

If an appeal is in order, would it be prudent to ask for a DRO hearing, so that specific evidence that support the CUE issuse can be read into the record as it is stated so that certain assertions in the SOC can be seen in their proper light?

Trying to figure out what my next steps will be if my CUE claim is denied.

Jim S. B)

[Guest Berta]

Jim- I dont know if this will help explain what I meant-

The CUE has to contain the legal regulation they broke- that caused an error in the SOC-I have posted some of those legal citations that VA has violated in past successful CUE claims-

The SSOC I received recently stated it was not a denial but contained not only legal but medical errors- which I can support in the response they asked for----guess I have to resend my two IMOS too- they have never mentioned them but my Vet rep there said they have them right in the files-proving my claims.

Had I received a decision like this years ago-and never appealed it- I could successfully CUE it-(that is how bad it is) as the SSOC again broke VA regs but I am still in active pursuit of the benefits I seek. So no CUE needed.

My point is that the VA itself very rarely identitifes a CUE - it is up to the veteran-when the VA found a CUE in an old claim I had- and rectified it- this was only the 3rd or 4th CUE I ever saw them call on themselves-

in 20 years of accessing COVA, BVA and CAVC.

the legal citations that they broke have to be clearly stated in the CUE-

Duty to assist regs and medical diagnostic differences of opinion are not CUEs.

Whatever regs they cited in the past decision you are cueing -aside from those within Duty to Assist----

these are the potential regulations that they could have broken.

Edited December 26, 2005 by Berta

[Guest Jim S.]

Berta: Don't let it be said that anything that you may offer to comment on is not helpfull. LoL You are one of the few who I listen to, whether it has any bearing at the time on my claim or not.

I guess the waiting is beginning to have it's way with my mind. Listening how you have been treated, I worry about the same thing happening to me.

These VARO employees need to have adverse consequences for their shoddy, if not malicious adjudication rulings. otherwise why would they have any reason to change their ways?

Jim S. B)

[Guest fla_viking]

Dear Fellow Veterans & Friends.

The VA employees at the RO level are above the law. The Court judges for Veterans says they dont obey court orders at the RO level.

Im writting a new post called the psycholigy of a RO denial. It is my hope to convince vetearns they are better off not appealing wiht in the RO trying to get them to read what they have refused to look at and understand what they dilbertly confuse themselfs on.

As far as the RO having to read a case before they deny it. You would be suprised how often the court upholds the VA right not to look at the facts of a vets claim

Terry Higgins

[john999]

What I did with my claim is that I had a former VA psychiatrist reevaluate and reinterpret all the events and records. She did this in such a way that the VA bought it hook, line and sinker. This can do wonders with a claim where the VA is saying you have other NSC reasons for them denying a higher percentage.