Jump to content
  • 0

Reopen/reconsideration/ Va 6/14/05?


Guest VetWife Advocate

Question

Guest VetWife Advocate

Found this on another Vetsite.....

Thought it might be again helpful here as well. I have a question about the latest June l4/05?

Added these legal facts to my Reconsideration!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Rating Clarification) The presumption of service-connected under 38 C.F.R. § 105(a) requires a disease, injury, or disability to be only “noted” during service.

(Rating Clarification) A disability is determined to be service-connected due to service or aggravation by service if it is either shown in the SMR records, or on discharge exam (Development Guide for Compensation & Pension Benefits, March 1995, Dept. of VA, Washington DC).

(Rating Clarification) The fact that a veteran’s service record documents that a disease or injury was incurred during service, requires the VA, through the application of statutory presumption, to establish service-connection. See C.F.R. § 3.303(a).

(Rating Clarification) When, after careful consideration of all procurable and assembled data, a reasonable doubt arises regarding service origin, the degree of disability, or any other point, such doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant. By reasonable doubt is meant one which exists because of an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence which does not satisfactorily prove or disprove the claim. It is a substantial doubt and one within the range of probability as distinguished from pure speculation or remote possibility. It is not a means of reconciling actual conflict or a contradiction in the evidence. Mere suspicion or doubt as to the truth of any statements submitted, as distinguished from impeachment or contradiction by evidence or known facts, is not justifiable basis for denying the application of the reasonable doubt doctrine if the entire, complete record otherwise warrants invoking this doctrine. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501). [50 FR 34458, Aug. 26, 1985, as amended at 66 FR 45630, Aug. 29, 2001]

(Rating Clarification) 38 C.F.R. § 105(a). Creates a presumption of service-connection for injuries or diseases that occur during active duty unless evidence establishes that the injury or disease was the result of persons own willful misconduct. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F. 3d 1163, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc).

CC33CC]VA failed to provide 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) notices (notification requirements) prior to the VA decision dated 14 June 2005. Veteran was never informed of the exact evidence needed to substantiate the claims prior to the rating decision (Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. Appt. 112 (2004). The reply by the VA before the decision does not meet the Federal law requirement above38 C.F.R. § 4.7 Higher of two evaluations

*****************************************************************************IS THIS WHY ALL OF THOSE VCCC LTRS ARE GOING OUT. EXACTLY HOW IS THIS DIFFENT FROM WHAT THEY HAD BEEN DOING?

Jim? said...if evidence in file...ignored...then still "open"???? Sorry for the confusion, but I still am way behind the learning curve; but I propably could go one and one with even National SO's!! And that is a SHAME!!!

Brenda

********************************************************************************

Where question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied

The higher evaluation will be assigned

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 2
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Days

Top Posters For This Question

2 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

YEAH Brenda---- the VA said they would send me VCAA letters on claims I filed 2 years ago- the ones I filed in 2003- I can't find any VCAA letters here on them at all---

Leroy is getting a VCAA letter too- after quite some time-

I found out something interesting too---

A recent BVA decision that I posted yesterday-(I think I did?)mentioned a treatise that the veteran had along with medical evidence-it seemed that they accepted the treatise as favoring the claim as 2 IMOS left it in equipoise- one for and one against-

Also the first Hepatitis to air gun VVA win at the BVA was based heavily on a published treatise-

I am bring this up because I found a wealth of evidence on the net that is specific to my claim and the conditions my husband had- in diagnosing diabetes. I found support for practically every blood chem reading, his autopsy, ECG, ECHO etc etc- even though I have 2 IMOS (that they still have not read)

well the VA in 2004 said that I had sent them under "evidence"

'Multiple internet attachments'

These were studies, abstracts and treatises. The VA itself was mentioned in two studies.

The VCAA certainly supports the veteran or claimant's right to have these types of evidence to be addressed in support of the claims.

I do not believe I ever got a VCAA letter and I wonder if this is spelled out in it.

All I ever got on my main claim was a denial saying the veteran was never diagnosed with diabetes,so therefore he didnt have diabetes.

Dr. Bash diagnosed him with diabetes (he had the whole shibang of med recs etc) ad I sent them what they asked for-and they ignored it.

I am really ticked now- because I think many many claimants out there are suddenly getting these VCAA letters-

my VARO did not even realise they failed to send me 3-per their letter-until I wrote to the IG and suddenly

they seem to be covering their rear ends.

I dont even know what a VCAA letter says.

Does anyone have a link to one? I would love to hear at hadit from anyone out there who just got a required VCAA letter after the VA has had their claim for some time.

Berta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YEAH Brenda---- the VA said they would send me VCAA letters on claims I filed 2 years ago- the ones I filed in 2003- I can't find any VCAA letters here on them at all---

Leroy is getting a VCAA letter too- after quite some time-

I found out something interesting too---

A recent BVA decision that I posted yesterday-(I think I did?)mentioned a treatise that the veteran had along with medical evidence-it seemed that they accepted the treatise as favoring the claim as 2 IMOS left it in equipoise- one for and one against-

Also the first Hepatitis to air gun VVA win at the BVA was based heavily on a published treatise-

I am bring this up because I found a wealth of evidence on the net that is specific to my claim and the conditions my husband had- in diagnosing diabetes. I found support for practically every blood chem reading, his autopsy, ECG, ECHO etc etc- even though I have 2 IMOS (that they still have not read)

well the VA in 2004 said that I had sent them under "evidence"

'Multiple internet attachments'

These were studies, abstracts and treatises. The VA itself was mentioned in two studies.

The VCAA certainly supports the veteran or claimant's right to have these types of evidence to be addressed in support of the claims.

I do not believe I ever got a VCAA letter and I wonder if this is spelled out in it.

All I ever got on my main claim was a denial saying the veteran was never diagnosed with diabetes,so therefore he didnt have diabetes.

Dr. Bash diagnosed him with diabetes (he had the whole shibang of med recs etc) ad I sent them what they asked for-and they ignored it.

I am really ticked now- because I think many many claimants out there are suddenly getting these VCAA letters-

my VARO did not even realise they failed to send me 3-per their letter-until I wrote to the IG and suddenly

they seem to be covering their rear ends.

I dont even know what a VCAA letter says.

Does anyone have a link to one? I would love to hear at hadit from anyone out there who just got a required VCAA letter after the VA has had their claim for some time.

Berta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines