Cue Granted In 208 At Bva

[Berta]

http://www.va.gov/vetapp08/files3/0820604.txt

ORDER

Clear and unmistakable error in the February 1946 rating

decision having been shown, a 30 percent rating for the

residuals of shell fragment wounds of the left forearm is

warranted from December 14, 1945.

The vet only went from 20 to 30 % but still this is quite a case and it shows how improperly application of the Rating schedule,in light of the medical evidence at hand, can warrant a clear and unmistakable error.

Medical evidence has to be established for most if not all CUE claims. It is when they start to use the Rating schedules and apply the DCs that many CUEs could occur.

It is in this way that the CUE is based on a legal error (use of 38 CFR) rather than any error in medical determination-which would not be a basis for CUE.

[carlie]

Here are some more granted CUE Claims for research.

Hope one helps a vet.

carlie

EED for PTSD - CUE -granted

http://www.va.gov/vetapp05/files1/0503568.txt

TDIU - restored - based on CUE - granted

http://www.va.gov/vetapp03/files/0319228.txt

Defective hearing - CUE - granted - from 2004 back to 1974

http://www.va.gov/vetapp04/files/0403497.txt

EED - Hearing loss - CUE granted

http://www.va.gov/vetapp05/files1/0506205.txt

Failure to adjudicate & failure to apply regs - CUE - granted

http://www.va.gov/vetapp05/files1/0505032.txt

EED from 1994 back to 1973 - RO did not properly apply the

appropriate rating criteria - CUE - granted

http://www.va.gov/vetapp05/files1/0500624.txt

EED - 1991 to 1969 - anxiety reaction - CUE - granted - rating board ignored evidence favorable to the appellant and also ignored the pertinent VA regulation

http://www.va.gov/vetapp95/files4/9517775.txt

[deltaj]

Here are some more granted CUE Claims for research.

Hope one helps a vet.

carlie

EED for PTSD - CUE -granted

http://www.va.gov/vetapp05/files1/0503568.txt

TDIU - restored - based on CUE - granted

http://www.va.gov/vetapp03/files/0319228.txt

Defective hearing - CUE - granted - from 2004 back to 1974

http://www.va.gov/vetapp04/files/0403497.txt

EED - Hearing loss - CUE granted

http://www.va.gov/vetapp05/files1/0506205.txt

Failure to adjudicate & failure to apply regs - CUE - granted

http://www.va.gov/vetapp05/files1/0505032.txt

EED from 1994 back to 1973 - RO did not properly apply the

appropriate rating criteria - CUE - granted

http://www.va.gov/vetapp05/files1/0500624.txt

EED - 1991 to 1969 - anxiety reaction - CUE - granted - rating board ignored evidence favorable to the appellant and also ignored the pertinent VA regulation

http://www.va.gov/vetapp95/files4/9517775.txt

So many of these cases involve a V.A. examiner not reviewing the veteran's file and the rating board simply confirming and continuing the prior rating based on inadequate examinations. V.A. is destroying people's lives with these tactics. Countless veterans do not appeal these sort of decisions.

[deltaj]

http://www.va.gov/vetapp08/files3/0820604.txt

ORDER

Clear and unmistakable error in the February 1946 rating

decision having been shown, a 30 percent rating for the

residuals of shell fragment wounds of the left forearm is

warranted from December 14, 1945.

The vet only went from 20 to 30 % but still this is quite a case and it shows how improperly application of the Rating schedule,in light of the medical evidence at hand, can warrant a clear and unmistakable error.

Medical evidence has to be established for most if not all CUE claims. It is when they start to use the Rating schedules and apply the DCs that many CUEs could occur.

It is in this way that the CUE is based on a legal error (use of 38 CFR) rather than any error in medical determination-which would not be a basis for CUE.

Awhile back I was reading in DAV's magazine about cases where V.A. made clear and unmistakable errors on through and through shrapnel wounds in failing to rate all the muscle groups shown in the records for wounds. This seems to be what happened in this case and the error was made in the first rating decision.

[carlie]

The first rating decision is where many errors are found.

The decision maker's usually don't look deeper down in

the claims file,than the last blue sheet in it.

jmho,

carlie