Buffalo Ny Hardship Claim

[Mr cue]

i have a cue claim had hearing in may 07 was well prepare thank to hadit told all law an reg that i no they cue i get the decision in oct07 and not one word of hearing or the law and reg i say that cue and how it would have made a differents if not for this cue.i put in my house forcoluser paper as hardship back in may and put them in oct when i elected dro so my thing is that i use iris and got a response say its with dro dec 1 and that they were email my hardship claim so any one no how long dro last a buffalo varo and i ask for hearing with him. what else can i do when that just gave me a decision that was a bunch of nothing and that even talk about that last rater was most ganrish to me. how hell is a person ganrish when i was hurt.

[Berta]

"wow venting again from what i under stand if hardship can be shown like bankructy or forclouser on a home va is sopposed to expidated claims."

I know this is done in case of NSC wartime Pension claims-I looked through the VBM yesterday but could not find anything as to whether a CUE claim decision can be expedited due to hardship.

What was the percentage rating for the elbow injury as NSC in the decision you are cueing? "0" NSC?

Did the established medical record at that point justify a higher rating then 10%-if in fact this could be service connected?

Did you rep consider that you claim the elbow (I assume you have continuous disability with the elbow caused by the ships on the bone) as secondary to your other SC disabilities? Or even as aggravated by your SC disabiliies?

[Mr cue]

they call it a pre exiting condition and did not rate it at all it was they way of put all of my never damage with my elbow and say that i had this before services. that were they use the false statement that i did not tell recuitor of my condition.but as i said isnt there a reg&law that say u cannot use a statement made by a veteran to deined benfits without med proof. that was a cue right.

[Berta]

Cue only involves 3 things-

A final unappealed VA decision (or BVA decision)

A Legal error in that decision-

which in your case I feel would be using the wrong diagnostic code

and a manifestly different outcome-but for the CUE meaning more retro.

What retro did the VA owe you-

if the VA had service connected the elbow in the decision you allege CUE occurred in-

what % of disability did you actually have- by medical evidence established at that time.

Has the VA ever acnowledged the elbow disability and what % did they give even if listed under NSC on your rating sheet.

I dont understand how bone fragments can cause disablity to a ratable level.Not saying it isnt possible -I just cant figure this out-

Do you get current treatment and have you gotten current treatment since service for this elbow disabiilty?

Is this elbow problem listed at all as either SC or NSC on the rating sheet in the decision you filed a CUE on?

[Berta]

Cue only involves 3 things-

A final unappealed VA decision (or BVA decision)

A Legal error in that decision-

which in your case I feel would be using the wrong diagnostic code

and a manifestly different outcome-but for the CUE meaning more retro.

What retro did the VA owe you-

if the VA had service connected the elbow in the decision you allege CUE occurred in-

what % of disability did you actually have- by medical evidence established at that time.

Has the VA ever acnowledged the elbow disability and what % did they give even if listed under NSC on your rating sheet.

I dont understand how bone fragments can cause disablity to a ratable level.Not saying it isnt possible -I just cant figure this out-

Do you get current treatment and have you gotten current treatment since service for this elbow disabiilty?

Is this elbow problem listed at all as either SC or NSC on the rating sheet in the decision you filed a CUE on?

[Mr cue]

yes they use the wrong dc for my neck and i am now 100%for neck but 2000 when i reopen it. i had the same syptom in 93 but was rated under the 5322 for gun shot wounds.so if they cue 93 does my 100% eed change from 2000 to 93 because i should have been rated the same as now. isnt a cue away to get eed

[Berta]

I hope you have read the vast amount of info here at hadit on CUE claims-

yes a CUE can gain a better EED and retro-sometimes Mega retro-

there are CUE claims here that are excellent examples of how this can be done.

I found that Buffalo does have a rater who comprehends CUE claims well-

they denied my CUE on a key issue which is unfounded-and without merit-

I dont know who this person is but they seem to be quite skilled at diverting the evidence of CUE with

other issues-

I was able to determine they then were trying to deny my CUE with the medical evidence I have that is solely for my AO death claim.

They have ignored all of my legal evidence.

Make sure that you combat any denial by stressing that they apply established VA case law and consider your legal evidence with a full rationale if it is rejected.

My legal evidence consisted of 2 General Counsel Pres Ops , 4 BVA decisions (which were applicable and probative due to their interpretation of VA case law specific to the decisions I cued) as well as printouts from M21-1 and 38 CFR.I raised Bell and other legal points too to include FTCA medical findings that established the medical record that the CUE claims were based on.Also I used a statement from the VBM as evidence.

I suggest that if a vet feels they have a CUE claim they should invest in buying the VBM by NVLSP.

Then again -everything one needs to know on CUE is certainly right here at hadit.

The medical evidence that shows a ratable % or higher rating % in a past final decision must be a medical established fact-known to VA at time of alleged CUE.

Or at least available within the medical records that VA had at time of alleged CUE.

A CUE claim means that the vet or widow is using VA case law and regs (that stood on the books at time of alleged CUE) against the VA -to show they made a Legal error so significant, that the error was to the detriment of the veteran or widow and denied them a monetary amount.

Edited January 24, 2009 by Berta